Club One Casino, Inc., et al. v. Sarantos, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER to continue Scheduling Conference from 9/5/2017 to 10/30/2017 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. A Joint Scheduling Report is due one week before the new conference date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/14/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Steven D. McGee #71886
Stephanie Hamilton Borchers #192172
Sydney A. Smith #298092
DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED
8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor
P.O. Box 28902
Fresno, California 93729-8902
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiff CLUB ONE CASINO, INC. and CLUB ONE CASINO, INC. as
successor in interest to CLUB ONE ACQUISITION CORP.

9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
15

CLUB ONE CASINO, INC., a California
corporation, and CLUB ONE CASINO, INC.
as successor in interest to CLUB ONE
ACQUISITION
CORP.,
a
California
Corporation,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00818-DAD-SAB
STIPULATION
AND
ORDER
TO
CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE

16
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
19
20
21
22

LOUIS SARANTOS, an individual, dba
CLOVIS 500 CLUB and 500 CLUB
CASINO, DUSTEN PERRY, an individual,
JOHN CARDOT, an individual, SHAWN
SARANTOS, an individual, JOSEPH F.
CAPPS,
an
individual,
LODI
FRANCESCONI, an individual, and DOES 124, 30-175, and 179-200 inclusive,

23

Defendants.

24
25

Plaintiff Club One Casino, Inc. (“Club One”) and Club One Casino, Inc. as

26

successor in interest to Club One Acquisition Corp. (“COAC”, and together with Club One,

27

“Plaintiff”), on the one hand, and Defendant Louis Sarantos (“Defendant”), on the other hand,

28

///

1

hereby stipulate by and through their counsel of record to continue the Mandatory Scheduling

2

Conference in this matter for 45 days, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.

3

RECITALS

4

1.

On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against George Sarantos

5

and Defendant Louis Sarantos in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of

6

Fresno, known as Case No. 15CECG02704. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in state

7

court on December 10, 2015, and dismissed George Sarantos from the case with prejudice on

8

September 6, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in state court naming Dusten

9

Perry, John Cardot, Shawn Sarantos, Joseph F. Capps, and Lodi Francesconi as defendants (the

10

“Remaining Defendants”) and alleging claims for, among other things, violations of the

11

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

12

2.

Defendant removed this case to federal court on June 19, 2017, based on

13

federal question subject matter jurisdiction arising from Plaintiff’s Racketeer Influenced and

14

Corrupt Organizations Act claims [Docket Nos. 1-3]. At the time of removal, none of the

15

Remaining Defendants had been formally served with the operative Second Amended

16

Complaint or the state court summons.

17

3.

On June 19, 2017, the Court set a Mandatory Scheduling Conference for

18

September 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 of the above-captioned court [Docket No 4].

19

The Court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference provides that the Court is unable

20

to conduct a Scheduling Conference until all defendants have been served with the summons

21

and complaint.

22

4.

Because none of the Remaining Defendants had been formally served

23

prior to removal, a new summons from this Court was required before Plaintiff could serve the

24

Remaining Defendants. Plaintiff accordingly filed a Motion for Issuance of Summons which is

25

set to be heard on August 15, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 of the above-captioned court

26

[Docket Nos. 6-7].

27

///

28

///
2

1

STIPULATION

2
3

Based upon the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this
reference, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

4

A.

Good cause exists to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference

5

because the Court has not yet issued a summons and Plaintiff has therefore been unable to serve

6

the Remaining Defendants. Additionally, the deadline for the parties to meet and confer

7

regarding their Joint Scheduling Report is the same day that Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of

8

Summons is set to be heard. In order to allow sufficient time for issuance of a summons, for

9

Plaintiff to effect service on the Remaining Defendants, and to conserve the parties’ and the

10

Court’s resources, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby stipulate to continue the Mandatory

11

Scheduling Conference for 45 days or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.

12
13
14

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
Dated:

August 14, 2017

DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED

15
16

By:

17
18
19
20

/s/ Sydney A. Smith
Steven D. McGee
Stephanie Hamilton Borchers
Sydney A. Smith
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CLUB ONE CASINO, INC. and
CLUB ONE CASINO, INC.
as successor in interest to
CLUB ONE ACQUISITION CORP.

21
22
23

Dated:

August 14, 2017

BETTS & RUBIN

24
25

By:

26
27
28
3

/s/ James B. Betts
James B. Betts
Joseph D. Rubin
Attorneys for Defendant
LOUIS SARANTOS

1

ORDER

2
3

The Court, having considered the foregoing Stipulation, finds there is good
cause to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference

5

currently set for September 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 is continued to October 30,

6

2017 at 3:30 p.m. A Joint Scheduling Report is due one week before the new conference date.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 14, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4