Moreno v. City of Porterville et al
Filing
23
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE NOVEMBER 30, 2023 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/15/2023. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 11/30/2023 is CONTINUED to 5/30/2024 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. (Kusamura, W)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091
jmaddox@lcwlegal.com
Sue Ann Renfro, Bar No. 143122
srenfro@lcwlegal.com
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: 559.256.7800
Facsimile: 559.449.4535
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF PORTERVILLE and BRUCE
SOKOLOFF
Lawrence J. King, SBN 120805
kingesq@pacbell.net
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE J. KING
11 Western Avenue
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone: (707) 769-9791
Facsimile: (707) 769-9253
Attorney for Plaintiff ANA ISABEL MORENO
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO
16
ANA ISABEL MORENO,
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff.
v.
CITY OF PORTERVILLE and BRUCE
SOKOLOFF,
None.
Defendant.
Case No.: 1:23-cv-00541 JLT SKO
Complaint Filed: April 6, 2023
FAC Filed: August 14, 2023
SAC Filed: September 6, 2023
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
NOVEMBER 30, 2023 SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Plaintiff ANA ISABEL MORENO (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CITY OF
PORTERVILLE and BRUCE SOKOLOFF (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), hereby
stipulate to continue the FRCP 16 Scheduling Conference set for November 30, 2023.
1
30
Order re Joint Stipulation to Continue Scheduling Conference
31
12231972.1 PO090-042
1
2
3
4
5
6
WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 27, 2023 [Document
20];
WHEREAS, the parties received service of the Court’s October 3, 2023, Minute Order
[Document 21] advising of a multiple month delay before a decision on the Motion to Dismiss;
WHEREAS, counsel are considering but have not yet agreed to stipulate to Magistrate
jurisdiction;
7
WHEREAS, even if the parties agree to Magistrate jurisdiction, the status of the pleadings
8
renders the November 30, 2023, Scheduling Conference premature to make decisions on the case;
9
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and
10
Defendants, through their respective counsels of record, and the parties respectfully request the
11
Court continue the FRCP 16 Scheduling Conference from November 30, 2023, to such other date
12
at least six months from November 30, 2023, and as is convenient for the Court.
13
14
Dated: November 14, 2023
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
By: /s/
Sue
Ann
Renfro
Jesse J. Maddox Sue
Ann Renfro
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF
PORTERVILLE and BRUCE
SOKOLOFF
15
16
17
18
19
Dated: November 14, 2023
LAW OFFICE OF LARENCE J. KING
20
By: /s/
Lawrence
J.
King
Lawrence J. King
Attorneys for Plaintiff ANA ISABEL
ORENO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
30
Order re Joint Stipulation to Continue Scheduling Conference
31
12231972.1 PO090-042
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO
3
ANA ISABEL MORENO,
Case No.: 1:23-cv-00541 JLT SKO
4
Plaintiff.
5
v.
6
7
8
CITY OF PORTERVILLE and BRUCE
SOKOLOFF,
None.
Defendant.
Complaint Filed: April 6, 2023
FAC Filed: August 14, 2023
SAC Filed: September 6, 2023
ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO
CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
(Doc. 22)
9
10
ORDER
11
12
For good cause appearing therefore, the foregoing Stipulation IS HEREBY GRANTED.
13
The Scheduling Conference set for November 30, 2023, is hereby continued to May 30, 2024, at
14
9:30 a.m. The parties shall file their Joint Scheduling Report seven (7) days prior to the
15
Scheduling Conference.
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
November 15, 2023
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
30
Order re Joint Stipulation to Continue Scheduling Conference
31
12231972.1 PO090-042
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?