Saniefar v. Moore et al
Filing
35
STIPULATION for Further Continuance of Mandatory Scheduling Conference; ORDER: that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for January 17, 2018 is continued to April 9, 2018 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8, before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The parties are to file their Joint Scheduling Report no later than seven days prior to the conference. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/10/2018. (Herman, H)
1
2
3
Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 298-2000
Facsimile (408) 298-6046
Email: service@mission.legal
4
5
6
7
Attorney for Defendants,
Mission Law Firm, Moore Law Firm,
West Coast CASp & ADA Services,
Kenneth Randolph Moore, Geoshua Levinson,
Rick D. Moore, Ronald D. Moore, Ronny Loreto,
Elmer LeRoy Falk, and Marejka Sacks
8
11
Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 298-2000
Facsimile (408) 298-6046
Email: service@mission.legal
12
Defendant in pro se
9
10
13
16
Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 298-2000
Facsimile (408) 298-6046
Email: service@mission.legal
17
Defendant in pro se
14
15
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
FATEMEH SANIEFAR,
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff,
vs.
RONALD D. MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:17-cv-00823-LJO-BAM
STIPULATION FOR FURTHER
CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
27
28
WHEREAS, a Mandatory Scheduling Conference in this matter is set for January 17,
2018, having been continued from September 20, 2017 and November 28, 2017 (Dkt. 28);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Fatemeh Saniefar (“Plaintiff”), filed her First Amended
1
2
Complaint on January 3, 2018 (Dkt. 33);
3
WHEREAS, Defendants, Kenneth Randolph Moore, Geoshua Levinson, West Coast
4
CASp & ADA Services, Rick D. Moore, Tanya E. Moore, Zachary M. Best, Mission Law Firm,
5
Moore Law Firm, Ronald D. Moore, Ronny Loreto, Elmer LeRoy Falk, and Marejka Sacks (all
6
defendants are collectively referred to herein as “Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, “the
7
Parties”), are required to respond to the First Amended Complaint by January 19, 2018 (Dkt.
8
31);
9
WHEREAS, Defendants intend to file motions to dismiss on or before the responsive
10
pleading deadline, and the Parties desire to have those motions decided prior to moving forward
11
with the scheduling of this matter since the outcome of the motions may inform how this matter
12
proceeds and as to which (if any) Defendants;
13
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to
14
a continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for January 17, 2018 to a
15
date at the Court’s convenience on or after March 19, 2018 to allow time for Defendants’
16
Motion to Dismiss to be heard and ruled on.
17
Dated: January 8, 2018
18
/s/ Moji Saniefar
Moji Saniefar
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Fatemeh Saniefar
19
20
21
SANIEFAR LAW
Dated: January 8, 2018
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorney for Defendants
Mission Law Firm, Moore Law Firm, West
Coast CASp & ADA Services, Kenneth
Randolph Moore, Geoshua Levinson, Rick
D. Moore, Ronald D. Moore, Ronny
Loreto, Elmer LeRoy Falk, and Marejka
Sacks
Dated: January 8, 2018
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Defendant in pro se
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
Dated: January 8, 2018
/s/ Zachary M. Best
Zachary M. Best
Defendant in pro se
3
4
5
ORDER
6
7
The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set
9
for January 17, 2018 is continued to April 9, 2018 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8, before
10
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The parties are to file their Joint Scheduling Report no
11
later than seven days prior to the conference.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 10, 2018
/s/ Barbara
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?