Lobato v. Riar et al

Filing 16

Third STIPULATION and ORDER for Extension of Time: that defendants PAUL RIAR aka SURINDER PAUL SINGH RIAR, individually and dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; MAHJA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a California corporation, dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; and SIMERJIT RIAR shall have until November 30, 2015 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference is continued from November 30, 2015 to December 16, 2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/27/2015. (Herman, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Bruce A. Neilson #096952 7108 N. Fresno St. #410 Fresno, California 93720 Telephone (559) 432-9831 Facsimile (559) 432-1837 Attorney for Defendants Paul Riar, Simerjit Riar and Mahja Business Solutions 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ***** 9 10 RACHEL LOBATO, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 PAUL RIAR aka SURINDER PAUL SINGH RIAR, individually and dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; MAHJA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a California corporation, dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; SIMERJIT RIAR; 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01127--BAM THIRD STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAUL RIAR aka SURINDER PAUL SINGH RIAR, individually and dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; MAHJA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a California corporation, dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; and SIMERJIT RIAR TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Defendants. ____________________________________ 19 WHEREAS: 20 1. Plaintiff RACHEL LOBATO filed her complaint in this action on July 20, 2015. 21 2. This is the third request for an extension of time for PAUL RIAR aka SURINDER PAUL 22 SINGH RIAR, individually and dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; MAHJA BUSINESS 23 SOLUTIONS, a California corporation, dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; and SIMERJIT RIAR 24 (“Defendants”). A previous extension of time was granted by the Court on September 30, 2015 25 and court approval is required for a further extension of time. 26 3. Plaintiff and Defendants continue to be in settlement negotiations at this time. 27 4. Defendants have had a CASp inspection performed and report prepared, however a 28 supplemental report that will affect a proposed settlement has been delayed beyond that previously anticipated by the defendants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5. The parties agree that settlement of this case would save valuable court time and resources. 6. The parties have agreed to extend Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint until November 20, 2015, subject to the court's approval, and believe that the case can be settled within that time. 7. This extension of time will not alter any date or event already set by Court order, including the mandatory scheduling conference. NOW THEREFORE, Defendants through their attorneys, and Plaintiff JOSE ESCOBEDO through his attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree that the time for PAUL RIAR aka SURINDER PAUL SINGH RIAR, individually and dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; MAHJA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a California corporation, dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; and SIMERJIT RIAR to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be extended up to and including November 20, 2015, pending court approval. 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 14 Dated: October 23, 2015 15 16 Dated: October 23, 2015 MOORE LAW FIRM, PC /s/Tanya Moore Tanya Moore, Attorney for Plaintiff Rachel Lobato 18 /s/Bruce A. Neilson Bruce A. Neilson, Attorney for Defendants Paul Riar, Simerjit Riar and Mahja Business Solutions 19 ORDER 17 20 IT IS SO ORDERED that defendants PAUL RIAR aka SURINDER PAUL SINGH 21 RIAR, individually and dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; MAHJA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a 22 California corporation, dba ROEDING PARK SHELL; and SIMERJIT RIAR shall have until 23 November 30, 2015 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER 24 ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference is continued from November 30, 2015 to December 25 16, 2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge McAuliffe. 26 27 Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?