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)
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?