Vivanco v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al.
Filing
10
STIPULATION and ORDER to Continue Scheduling Conference: Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is continued from 6/20/2017 to Wednesday, September 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., with the Parties to file a Joint Scheduling Conference Statement at least one week prior to the continued Scheduling Conference date. Parties wishing to appear telephonically may do so with each party using the following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in number 1-877-411-9748; passcode 3190866. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/14/2017. (Herman, H)
1 Jesse Ortiz SBN 176450
2 Nolan Berggren SBN 293248
JESSE ORTIZ LAW
3 980 9th Street, Suite 340
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: 916.443.9500
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARISOL VIVANCO
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
FRESNO DIVISION
11
12 MARISOL VIVANCO, individually and as
Successor in Interest of SOLTON VIVANCO
13 GONZALEZ (deceased),
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive.
19
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00434-LJO-BAM
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Date:
June 20, 2017
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 8
Judge:
Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe
Defendants.
20
21
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, Plaintiff, MARISOL VIVANCO,
22
individually and as successor in interest of SOLTON VIVANCO GONZALEZ (“Plaintiff”), and
23
Defendants CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION and
24
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective attorneys of
25
record as follows:
26
27
1. The purpose of this Stipulation is to continue the Scheduling Conference currently set for
June 20, 2017 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitled Court.
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1
2. On or about March 24, 2017, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss the
2
Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this action (Docket #4), and a hearing was set for April 25,
3
2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill.
4
3. On or about April 19, 2017, Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill found the Motion suitable for
5
decision without oral argument and vacated the April 25, 2017 hearing on the Motion. As of
6
the drafting of this Stipulation, a ruling on Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss has not
7
been issued by the Court.
8
4. With consideration of the current state of the pleadings, and with the Court’s permission, the
9
parties agree to a sixty-day continuance of the Scheduling Conference currently set for June
10
20, 2017 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 8, in order to allow time for the Court to issue a ruling on
11
Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss.
12
13
DATE: June 13, 2017
14
JESSE ORTIZ LAW
_/s/Jesse Ortiz______________
Jesse Ortiz
Nolan Berggren
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
16
17
18
19 DATE: June 13, 2017
20
21
22
23
24
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
_____/s/_Diana Esquivel_________
DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1
ORDER
2
The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the Parties and finding good cause, hereby
3
4
issues an Order to:
Continue the Scheduling Conference of June 20, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., to Wednesday,
5
6
7
8
9
September 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., with the Parties to file a Joint Scheduling Conference Statement
at least one week prior to the continued Scheduling Conference date.
Parties wishing to appear
telephonically may do so with each party using the following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in
number 1-877-411-9748; passcode 3190866.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 Dated:
13
June 14, 2017
/s/ Barbara
A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
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?