McFarland v. Almond Board of California et al

Filing 33

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/24/2013 MODIFYING the time limitations provided by L.R. 230(c) and (d); ALLOWING Plaintiff 28 days to file an Opposition Brief to any Motion for Summary Judgment; ALLOWING Defendants 14 days to file a Reply Brief to any Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDERING that any Motion for Summary Judgment be filed and served 60 days prior to the scheduled hearing. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4

Galen T. Shimoda (Cal. State Bar No. 226752)
Jennet F. Zapata (Cal. State Bar No. 277063)
Shimoda Law Corp.
9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: [phone];
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

5
Attorneys for Plaintiff SUSI MCFARLAND
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Howard A. Sagaser (Cal. State Bar No. 72492)
Marcia Ann Ross (Cal. State Bar No. 160489)
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
5260 N Palm Ave., Suite 300
Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
Please refer to signature page for additional parties

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

SUSI MCFARLAND,

17
18

Plaintiff,
vs.

19
20
21

Case No.: 2:12-CV-02778-JAM-CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING TIME LIMITS TO FILE
OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA; TIM
BIRMINGHAM, an individual, and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

22
23

WHEREAS, on or about May 7, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Galen T. Shimoda,

24

requested Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Marcia Ross, Mr. Howard A. Sagaser, and Mr. Michael

25

Baytosh to stipulate to extend the time Plaintiff would have to file an opposition brief to a

26

motion for summary judgment, if filed in this matter; and

27

//

28
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL R. 230(c) and (d)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02778-JAM-CK

WHEREAS, on or about May 7, 2013, the parties agreed Plaintiff would have four

1
2

weeks (28 days) to file an opposition brief to a motion for summary judgment, instead of

3

fourteen (14) days as provided by Local Rule 230(c); and
WHEREAS, on or about May 13, 2013, the parties agreed that any motion for summary

4
5

judgment would be filed and served no less than 60 days prior to the scheduled hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 13, 2013, the parties agreed Defendants would have

6
7

fourteen (14) days to file a reply brief to any opposition to a motion for summary judgment,

8

instead of seven (7) days as provided by Local Rule 230(d);
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:

9

By and through their attorneys of record, the parties agree to modify the time limitations

10
11
12

provided by Local Rule 230(c) and (d) in that Plaintiff will have twenty eight (28) days to file
an opposition brief to a motion for summary judgment; Defendants will have fourteen (14) days
to file a reply brief to any opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and any motion for

13
summary judgment will be filed and served on all parties no less than sixty (60) days prior to
14

the scheduled hearing.

15
16

DATED: May 24, 2013

By:

17
18
19

Shimoda Law Corp.

DATED: May 24, 2013

20

/s/Galen T. Shimoda
Galen T. Shimoda
Attorney for Plaintiff SUSI MCFARLAND

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
By: __/s/Howard A. Sagaser____________
Howard A. Sagaser
Marcia Ann Ross
Attorney for Defendant ALMOND BOARD
OF CALIFORNIA

21
22
23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL R. 230(c) and (d)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02778-JAM-CK

1

DATED: May 23, 2013

Prout LeVangie

2
By: /s/__________________________________
Michael Baytosh (Cal. State Bar No.176189)
Attorney for Defendant TIM BIRMINGHAM
Prout LeVangie
2021 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: 5/24/2013

10

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
John A. Mendez
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL R. 230(c) and (d)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02778-JAM-CK