Hughes v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING 7 Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/11/2017. (1. The hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss is continued to 9/6/2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Cou rtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd; 2. The initial scheduling conference, currently set for 8/14/2017, is vacated; and 3. Within seven days of this order, the parties are directed to contact Mamie Hernandez, Courtroom Deputy to Magistrate Judge Stanely A. Boone, at mhernandez@caed.uscourts.gov or (559) 499-5672, to re-schedule the initial scheduling conference.) (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENDA HUGHES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-00779-DAD-SAB v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 7) Defendant. 16 17 On July 11, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the court continue the 18 19 hearing on defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (see Doc. No. 5). Good cause having been 20 shown and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation: 21 1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is continued to September 22 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd; 23 2. The initial scheduling conference, currently set for August 14, 2017, is vacated; and 24 3. Within seven days of this order, the parties are directed to contact Mamie Hernandez, Courtroom Deputy to Magistrate Judge Stanely A. Boone, at 25 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 mhernandez @caed.uscourts.gov or (559) 499-5672, to re-schedule the initial 2 scheduling conference. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?