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. The 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)
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?