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)

Download PDF
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?