West Coast Tires & Auto Center LLC et al v. Naveed et al

Filing 13

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT GARY ZAROUNIAN TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE STATUS REPORT RE DEFENDANT MOHAMMAD NAVEED WITHIN 5 DAYS, ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. The mandatory sched uling conference is CONTINUED from November 14, 2019 to January 14, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9; The parties shall file a joint scheduling report at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the continued scheduling conference date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/8/2019. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WEST COAST TIRES & AUTO CENTER LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01165-DAD-SAB ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT GARY ZAROUNIAN TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 MOHAMMAD NAVEED, et al., ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE STATUS REPORT RE DEFENDANT MOHAMMAD NAVEED WITHIN FIVE DAYS 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO JANUARY 14, 2020 17 18 (ECF No. 12) 19 20 Plaintiff filed this action on August 25, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On October 8, 2019, the 21 parties filed a stipulation requesting an extension until November 15, 2019, for Defendant Gary 22 Zarounian to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 12.) This is the second 23 extension, as on September 13, 2019, the parties previously filed a stipulation extending 24 Defendant Gary Zarounian’s time to respond to the complaint by twenty-eight (28) days. (ECF 25 No. 11.) The Court shall grant the request, however, given the proximity of the extended 26 response deadline to the date of the scheduling conference, the Court shall also continue the date 27 of the scheduling conference. 28 /// 1 In the stipulation before the Court, the parties state that the requested extension for Gary 1 2 Zarounian is to allow for the completion of an unlawful detainer action that Gary Zarounian is 3 pursuing against Defendant Mohammad Naveed. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Defendant Mohammad 4 Naveed has not filed a response to the complaint, nor received an extension to do so, and was 5 served with the summons on September 4, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) Pursuant to Rule 12 of the 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a responsive pleading was due twenty-one days after service of 7 the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court shall require Plaintiffs to 8 either file a status report further explaining the status of Defendant Mohammed Naveed in this 9 action or file a request for entry of default. 1 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Defendant Gary Zarounian shall file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint on or before November 15, 2019; 12 2. 13 Within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiffs shall either file a 14 request for entry of default against Defendant Mohammad Naveed, or a status 15 report regarding the status of the action as against Defendant Mohmmad Naveed; 3. 16 The mandatory scheduling conference is CONTINUED from November 14, 2019 to January 14, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9; 17 4. 18 The parties shall file a joint scheduling report at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the continued scheduling conference date. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: October 8, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court also notes that Defendant George Zarounian has not been served in this action. It is not clear if Plaintiff is still pursuing claims against George Zarounian now that Defendant Gary Zarounian has been designated in the action as a doe defendant. (ECF No. 5.) While the deadline to serve has not passed, the Court expects Plaintiffs to serve Defendant George Zarounian, dismiss him as a Defendant in this action, or provide notice to the Court prior to continued scheduling conference date as to the status of this Defendant. 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?