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)

Download PDF
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?