Cabardo et al v. Patacsil et al

Filing 73

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/9/18, ORDERING that the trial is CONTINUED to 1/28/2019 at 09:00 AM and the Final Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to 11/15/2018 at 02:00 PM, BOTH in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. The Joint Pretrial Conference Statement is DUE on 11/8/2018. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 7 STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191) StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336) HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com MARCO A. PALAU (Bar. No. 242340) MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com JOSEPH D. SUTTON (Bar No. 269951) JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, California 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—SACRAMENTO DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 JOSEPH CABARDO, DONNABEL SUYAT, MACTABE BIBAT, MARISSA BIBAT, ALICIA BOLLING, RENATO MANIPON, CARLINA CABACONGAN, AND JOHN DAVE CABACONGAN, on behalf of all current and former employees and the State of California 20 21 22 PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER Plaintiffs, 18 19 Case No.: 2:12-CV-01705-TLN-KJN vs. MARILYN PATACSIL AND ERNESTO PATACSIL Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN 1 2 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 3 Plaintiffs JOSEPH CABARDO, DONNABEL SUYAT, MACTABE BIBAT, MARISSA 4 BIBAT, ALICIA BOLLING, RENATO MANIPON, CARLINA CABACONGAN, AND JOHN 5 DAVE CABACONGAN (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants MARILYN PATACSIL AND ERNESTO 6 PATACSIL (“Defendants”) (collectively the “parties”), by and through their counsel of record, 7 hereby stipulate as follows: 8 9 Whereas the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists for continuing the existing trial date in this matter; 10 Whereas the parties have not sought a prior continuance of the trial date in this matter; 11 Whereas Plaintiffs’ counsel has another trial that has now been set for May 21, 2018 in 12 state court and represents that two concurrent jury trials (this one with eight plaintiffs) is overly 13 burdensome for its practice; 14 15 Whereas Defense counsel represents that it has a highly impacted litigation calendar from July 2018 through October 2018; and 16 Whereas the parties remain committed to participating in good faith in the April 9, 2018 17 Settlement Conference with Magistrate Delaney that this Court set due, in part, to the congestion 18 of its trial court calendar. 19 20 THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate to and propose a continuance of the existing trial date to November 14, 2018, or a date thereafter that is amenable to the Court and the parties. 21 22 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN 1 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 DATED: March 30, 2018 MALLISON & MARTINEZ 4 By: 5 /s/ Joseph D. Sutton Stan S. Mallison Hector R. Martinez Marco A. Palau Joseph D. Sutton 6 7 8 9 10 DATED: March 30, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL B. LEVIN 11 12 13 By: /s/ Michael B. Levin Michael B. Levin 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN 1 2 3 ORDER Good cause appearing, the Court hereby Grants the Parties’ Stipulation to Continue the Trial Date in this matter is GRANTED. 4 The trial date is set for January 28, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. 5 The Final Pretrial Conference is set for November 15, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., with the Joint 6 Pretrial Conference Statement due on November 8, 2018. 7 8 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: April 9, 2018 11 12 13 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN

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?