Acosta v. Tamez et al

Filing 10

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER for Extension of Time for all Defendants to Respond to Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/20/2016. ( Answer or Response to Complaint due by 1/23/2017) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

Bruce A. Neilson #096952
7108 N. Fresno St. #410
Fresno, California 93720
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Attorney for Defendants
Reyna Tamez, Jose Nino, John
Bettencourt and Debby Bettencourt

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

*****
))))))
) CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01614-DAD-EPG
JOSE ACOSTA,
)
) SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
) FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ALL
) DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
vs.
) COMPLAINT
)
REYNA TAMEZ dba AL’S RICOS TACOS )
aka AL RICOS TACOS; JOSE NINO dba
)
AL’S RICOS TACOS aka AL RICOS
)
TACOS; JOHN BETTENCOURT; DEBBY )
BETTENCOURT;
)
)
Defendants.
)
_ _______________ _ )
WHEREAS:

19

1. Plaintiff JOSE ACOSTA filed his complaint in this action on October 25, 2016.

20

2. This is the second request for an extension of time for REYNA TAMEZ dba AL’S RICOS

21

TACOS aka AL RICOS TACOS, JOSE NINO dba AL’S RICOS TACOS aka AL RICOS

22

TACOS, JOHN BETTENCOURT and DEBBY BETTENCOURT (“Defendants”). A previous

23

stipulation for extension of time was granted by local rule and therefore court approval is required

24

for a further extension of time. A joint status report is due on or about January 24, 2017.

25

3. Plaintiff and Defendants continue to be in settlement negotiations at this time, but time is

26

needed to review a now completed CASp report and conclude the terms of a settlement.

27

4. The parties agree and submit that settlement of this case prior to the preparation of a joint status

28

report would save valuable court time and resources.
JOSE ACOSTA v. REYNA TAMEZ, et al.
Second Stipulation For Extension of Time

1

Case No. 1:16-cv-01614

1

5. The parties have agreed to extend Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint until January

2

23, 2017, subject to the court's approval, and believe that the case can be settled within that time.

3

NOW THEREFORE, Defendants through their attorneys, and Plaintiff JOSE ACOSTA

4

through his attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree that the time for REYNA TAMEZ dba AL’S

5

RICOS TACOS aka AL RICOS TACOS, JOSE NINO dba AL’S RICOS TACOS aka AL RICOS

6

TACOS, JOHN BETTENCOURT and DEBBY BETTENCOURT to answer or otherwise respond

7

to the Complaint shall be extended up to and including January 23, 2017, pending court approval.

8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

9
10

Dated: December 19, 2016

MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
/s/Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore, Attorney for Plaintiff Jose Acosta

11
12

Dated: December 19, 2016

13

/s/Bruce A. Neilson
Bruce A. Neilson, Attorney for Defendants,
Reyna Tamez, Jose Nino, John Bettencourt and
Debby Bettencourt

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSE ACOSTA v. REYNA TAMEZ, et al.
Second Stipulation For Extension of Time

2

Case No. 1:16-cv-01614

1
2
3
4
5

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED that defendants REYNA TAMEZ dba AL’S RICOS TACOS aka AL
RICOS TACOS, JOSE NINO dba AL’S RICOS TACOS aka AL RICOS TACOS, JOHN
BETTENCOURT and DEBBY BETTENCOURT shall have until January 23, 2017 to answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

December 20, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSE ACOSTA v. REYNA TAMEZ, et al.
Second Stipulation For Extension of Time

3

Case No. 1:16-cv-01614