Jose Acosta v. Negrete et al
Filing
9
STIPULATION and ORDER to Continue Time to Respond to Complaint and Continue Mandatory Scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/12/2017. It is hereby ordered that Defendants may have to and including September 8, 2017 within which to file their responsive pleadings. It is further ordered that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for August 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. is continued to October 4, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before Magistrate Judge B arbara A. McAuliffe, based upon the parties representation that they are in active settlement discussions. The parties are directed to file their joint scheduling report no later than seven (7) days prior to the Scheduling Conference. (Valdez, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
C. FREDRICK MEINE III #203889
KEITH M. WHITE #188536
COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP
Attorneys at Law
499 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 116
Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: (559) 248-4820
Facsimile: (559) 248-4830
Attorneys for Defendants,
MIGUEL ANGEL CERVANTES; and
JUAN ESPINOSA NEGRETE dba TAQUERIA YARELIS
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE ACOSTA
12
Case No. 1:17-cv-00616-AWI-BAM
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
JUAN ESPINOSA NEGRETE dba
TAQUERIA YARELIES; MARGARITA dba
TAQUERIA YARELIS; MIGUEL ANGEL
CERVANTES
15
16
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND
CONTINUE MANDATOARY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
WHEREAS, the responsive pleadings of Defendants JUAN ESPINOSA NEGRETE dba
21
TAQUERIA YARELIS and MIGUEL ANGEL CERVANTES (collectively “Defendants”) are
22
past due;
23
24
WHEREAS, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference in this matter is currently set for
August 3, 2017;
25
WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants were only recently retained;
26
WHEREAS, Plaintiff JOSE ACOSTA (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants wish additional time
27
to attempt resolution of the matter without incurring fees and costs associated with filing
28
responsive pleadings, as well as preparing for and attending the scheduling conference as
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
1
2
3
currently scheduled;
WHEREAS, the parties wish to conserve the Court’s resources and time and not
unnecessarily burden the Court with a matter that will likely be informally resolved;
4
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff JOSE ACOSTA through his attorney of record, and
5
Defendants MIGUEL ANGEL CERVANTES and JUAN ESPINOSA NEGRETE dba
6
TAQUERIA YARELIS through their attorney of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
7
8
9
1.
That Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint be extended to September 8,
2017, which extension exceeds 28 days from the initial deadline; and
2.
That the Mandatory Scheduling Conference that was scheduled by the Court for
10
August 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. be continued to a date after September 25, 2017 at the Court’s
11
convenience.
12
Dated: July 11, 2017
MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
13
14
By: /s/ Zachary M. Best
ZACHARY M. BEST
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOSE ACOSTA
15
16
17
Dated: July 11, 2017
COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP
18
19
20
21
22
By:
/s/ Keith M. White
KEITH M. WHITE
Attorneys for Defendants
JUAN ESPINOSA NEGRETE dba
TAQUERIA YARELIS; and MIGUEL
ANGEL CERVANTES
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants may have to and including September 8,
2017 within which to file their responsive pleadings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set
6
for August 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. is continued to October 4, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8
7
before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, based upon the parties’ representation that they
8
are in active settlement discussions. The parties are directed to file their joint scheduling report
9
10
no later than seven (7) days prior to the Scheduling Conference.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 12, 2017
/s/ Barbara
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
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?