Hernandez v. National Express Transit Corporation et al

Filing 11

STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING the parties' request for a continuance of the Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for 8/15/2017 and CONTINUING it to 11/1/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. T he Court grants telephonic appearances at said conference, with each party wishing to so appear directed to use the following dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. The parties are also reminded to file a joint status report one full week prior to the conference and email a copy of same, in Word format, to epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov, for the Judge's review. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/4/2017. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Mark P. Grajski (SBN 178050) mgrajski@seyfarth.com Lindsay Fitch (SBN 238227) lfitch@seyfarth.com Geoffrey C. Westbrook (SBN 281961) gwestbrook@seyfarth.com 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, California 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 JORGE GUZMAN HERNANDEZ, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 Case No. 1:17-cv-00610-DAD-EPG STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES v. NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION, a corporation; DANIEL KLEMPLE, an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 23, 2017 18 19 WHEREAS an initial Scheduling Conference is scheduled for August 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in 20 21 Courtroom 10, 6th Floor, United States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, before the 22 Honorable Erica P. Grosjean; WHEREAS the parties agreed to discuss early resolution of the action and scheduled a private 23 24 mediation for August 1, 2017; WHEREAS the mediation was rescheduled due to a sudden illness and hospitalization to 25 26 September 2017; WHEREAS the parties have not previously requested to continue the scheduling conference; and 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 39978014v.1 1 WHEREAS the parties seek a continuance of the scheduling conference to preserve the Court’s 1 2 limited resources and avoid incurring additional litigation expenses prior to the mediation. 3 NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES JOINTLY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 4 That the initial scheduling conference in this case be continued to Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5 at 10:00 a.m. (or such other date and time that this Court deems proper) in Courtroom 10, 6th Floor, 6 United States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, and that all concomitant deadlines be 7 continued accordingly. 8 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: August 3, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 10 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 11 12 By: /s/ Geoffrey C. Westbrook Mark P. Grajski Lindsay Fitch Geoffrey C. Westbrook Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION 13 14 15 16 17 DATED: August 3, 2017 BONONI LAW GROUP, LLP 18 By: /s/ Christy W. Granieri Michael J. Bononi Christy W. Granieri 19 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff JORGE GUZMAN HERNANDEZ 21 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 39978014v.1 1 1 ORDER 2 Having considered the stipulation of the parties and finding good cause for their request, the 3 initial scheduling conference in this case is hereby rescheduled for November 1, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in 4 Courtroom 10, 6th Floor, United States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California. All 5 associated deadlines are continued accordingly. 6 7 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 9 August 4, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 39978014v.1 1

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?