Owens v. Fresno Foods, LLC, et al.
Filing
13
ORDER FOR THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT FRESNO FOODS RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND TO CONTINUE the Scheduling Conference to 6/14/2016 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. The parties are to file their joint Scheduling Report no later then seven days prior to the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/4/2016. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 298-2000
Facsimile (408) 298-6046
Email: service@moorelawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Arthur Owens
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARTHUR OWENS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRESNO FOODS, LLC, dba JACK IN THE
BOX #526, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:15-cv-01526---SAB
STIPULATION FOR THIRD EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT FRESNO
FOODS, LLC’S RESPONSIVE
PLEADING AND SECOND
CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER
WHEREAS, Defendant, Fresno Foods, LLC, dba Jack in the Box #526 (“Fresno
Foods”), is the only defendant who has been served in this action to date;
20
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Arthur Owens (“Plaintiff,” and together with Fresno Foods, “the
21
Parties”), and Fresno Foods have previously stipulated twice to extend the time for Fresno
22
Foods to file its responsive pleading;
23
WHEREAS, the Court previously granted the Parties’ second stipulation for an
24
extension of time for Fresno Foods’ responsive pleading to January 29, 2016, and also granted
25
the Parties’ request to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to March 8, 2016 at 3:00
26
p.m. (Dkt. 8);
27
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has been unable to effect service of the summons and complaint to
28
date on the sole remaining defendant, Pauline F. Kouvalas-Prew, as Trustee of the Pauline F.
1
Kouvalas-Prew Revocable Trust Dated August 15, 2011 (“Kouvalas-Prew”), and is filing a
2
request for administrative relief from the service deadline concurrently with this stipulation;
3
4
5
6
WHEREAS, the Parties believe that Kouvalas-Prew’s participation is necessary to
achieve a full settlement or resolution of Plaintiff’s claims;
WHEREAS, counsel for Fresno Foods has been out of the office ill, and requires
additional time to prepare and file Fresno Foods’ responsive pleading;
7
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to a
8
further fourteen-day extension of time for Fresno Foods to file its responsive pleading, such that
9
the responsive pleading shall be filed on or before February 12, 2016. The Parties additionally
10
stipulate to a further continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for
11
March 8, 2016 to a date at the Court’s convenience after June 6, 2016, to allow time for
12
Kouvalas-Prew to be served with the summons and complaint and to make an appearance, and
13
for the Parties to meet and confer with Kouvalas-Prew and file a joint scheduling report.
14
15
Date: February 3, 2016
MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
16
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Arthur Owens
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date: February 3, 2016
BHATIA & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Peter Cook
Peter Cook
Attorney for Defendant,
Fresno Foods, LLC, dba Jack in the Box #526
1
ORDER
2
The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time within which Defendant Fresno Foods, LLC,
4
dba Jack in the Box #526, must file a responsive pleading is extended to and including February
5
12, 2016. The Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for March 8, 2016 is continued
6
to June 14, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9, before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. The
7
parties are to file their Joint Scheduling Report no later than seven days prior to the conference.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 4, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?