MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. Apex Directional Drilling, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/29/2014 ORDERING 29 that the parties need not file a joint scheduling report in this case until thirty days after the resolution of the consolidation/coordination issue. The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the consolidation/coordination issue has been resolved. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

BEN PATRICK (SBN 244092)
[e-mail]
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
525 Market Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2725
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

FRESNO DIVISION

10
11

MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:14−CV−00857−JAM—BAM
FURTHER STIPULATION AND
PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE
RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

APEX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. (“MP Nexlevel”) and Defendant Apex
Directional Drilling, LLC (“Apex”), through their attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:

19

1.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order previously entered by the Court (docket

20

entry 22), the parties are to conduct a Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference and provide the Court

21

with a joint status report no later than sixty days after the Court’s ruling on Apex’s motion to

22

dismiss (docket entry 18).

23

2.

On September 10, 2014, Apex withdrew its motion to dismiss (docket entry 26).

24

Because there will be no Court ruling on the motion to dismiss, the parties have treated

25

September 10, 2014 as the equivalent of a Court ruling, triggering the sixty-day deadline to

26

provide the Court with a joint status report. That would make the report due on November 10,

27

2014.

28

3.

On February 28, 2014, MP Nexlevel commenced an action in the United States

-1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
CASE NO.: 1:14−CV−00857−JAM—BAM
1286325v.1

1

District Court for the Eastern District of California, captioned MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v.

2

CVIN, LLC et al., case no. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-GSA (the “CVIN Litigation”).

3

Litigation is related to this case, and was identified as a related matter on MP Nexlevel’s civil

4

cover sheet for this case (docket entry 1-3).

5

4.

The CVIN

On September 26, 2014, MP Nexlevel served Apex with a third-party complaint in

6

the CVIN Litigation (CVIN Litigation docket entry 108). The issues and claims contained in MP

7

Nexlevel’s third-party complaint against Apex in the CVIN Litigation are substantially the same

8

as the issues and claims raised by MP Nexlevel’s complaint against Apex in this case.

9

5.

Apex contests the validity of the issues and claims contained in MP Nexlevel’s

10

complaint against Apex in this case, as evidenced by its answer, affirmative defenses, and

11

counterclaims served on October 8, 2014 (docket entry 27). Apex will contest the validity of the

12

issues and claims contained in MP Nexlevel’s third-party complaint against Apex in the CVIN

13

Litigation. Apex’s answer to the third party complaint is due on or before November 25, 2014.

14

6.

On October 20, 2014, all parties in the CVIN Litigation (including MP Nexlevel

15

and Apex) participated in a Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference. The parties will also appear for a

16

Mandatory Scheduling Conference before the CVIN Litigation court on November 12, 2014.

17

7.

Because the issues presented in the CVIN Litigation are substantially the same as

18

the issues presented in this case, both MP Nexlevel and Apex believe that consolidation or

19

coordination of these two cases is appropriate. MP Nexlevel and Apex intend to raise that issue

20

during the November 12, 2014 initial scheduling conference before the CVIN Litigation court.

21

MP Nexlevel and Apex will then promptly file the appropriate motion to achieve either

22

consolidation or coordination of these two cases.

23

8.

Because these two cases present a classic scenario for consolidation or

24

coordination, and because MP Nexlevel and Apex have participated in a Rule 26(f) Scheduling

25

Conference in the CVIN Litigation, the parties believe it would be a waste of time and resources

26

to conduct a further Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference, or an Initial Scheduling Conference

27

before the Court, until the issue of consolidation or coordination has been resolved.

28

9.

Therefore, MP Nexlevel and Apex hereby stipulate, and request that the Court

-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1286325v.1

1

order, that the parties need not file a joint scheduling report in this case until thirty days after the

2

resolution of the consolidation/coordination issue.

3

IT IS SO STIPULATED

4
5

Dated: October 29, 2014

6
7

/s/ Ben Patrick
Ben Patrick, Esq. (SBN 244092)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

8
9
10

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP

Signature authorized: October 29, 2014

TONKON TORP, LLP

11
12

/s/ David Rabbino
David Rabbino, Esq. (SBN 181291)
Attorneys for Defendant
APEX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1286325v.1

1

ORDER

2

The foregoing Stipulation of the parties is hereby approved, and pursuant to the

3

Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties need not file a joint scheduling report in

4

this case until thirty days after the resolution of the consolidation/coordination issue. The parties

5

shall promptly notify the Court when the consolidation/coordination issue has been resolved.

6

BY THE COURT:

7
8
9

Dated: 10/29/2014

10

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1286325v.1