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)

Download PDF
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?