McFarland v. Almond Board of California et al

Filing 60

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/29/2014 ORDERING that dispositive motions be heard by 12/17/2014 at 09:30 AM. (Michel, G)

5

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

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff SUSI McFARLAND

7

Howard A. Sagaser (Cal. State Bar No. 72492)
Ian B. Wieland (Cal. State Bar No. 285721)
Marcia Ann Ross (Cal. State Bar No. 160489)
7550 North Palm Ave., Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendant ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
Sharon B. Futerman (Cal. State Bar No. 124238)
LeVangie Law Group
2021 N St
Sacramento, CA 95811
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant TIM BIRMINGHAM

18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21

SUSI MCFARLAND,

22
23

Plaintiff,
vs.

24
25
26
27
28

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER RE DEADLINES TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION BRIEFS AND HEARING DATE

Case No. 2:12-CV-02778-JAM-CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
DEADLINES TO FILE DISPOSITIVE
MOTION BRIEFS AND HEARING
DATE

Case No. 2:12-CV-02778-JAM-CKD

1

WHEREAS, the court issued a scheduling order (“order”) on or about May 16, 2013 (Doc.

1
2

30); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the order, all dispositive motions shall be filed by October 22, 2014

3
4

and hearing on such motions shall be on November 19, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the time limits to file

5
6

an opposition and reply brief to any motions for summary judgment (Doc 32); and

7

WHEREAS, the May 24, 2013 stipulation provided that “Plaintiff would have four weeks

8

(28 days) to file an opposition brief to a motion for summary judgment, instead of fourteen (14) days

9

as provided by Local Rule 230(c)”; and

10

WHEREAS, the May 24, 2013 stipulation provided that “the parties agreed Defendants

11

would have fourteen (14) days to file a reply brief to any opposition to a motion for summary

12

judgment, instead of seven (7) days as provided by Local Rule 230(d)”; and

13

WHEREAS, on or about May 28, 2013, the court approved the May 24, 2013 stipulation

14

between the parties to modify the time limits to file an opposition and reply brief to any motions for

15

summary judgment as described above (Doc. 33); and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation and order to continue the

16
17

deadline to complete all discovery, but did not request any changes to the deadlines to file

18

dispositive motions (October 22, 2014) or the date for hearing on such motions (November 19,

19

2014) (Doc. 56); and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2014, the court approved the parties’ stipulation as filed on June 20,

20
21

2014 (Doc. 57); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to abide by their prior stipulation regarding the time limits to

22
23

file opposition and reply briefs to dispositive motions (Doc. 33); and
WHEREAS, the parties recently realized that if Defendants file a dispositive motion on or

24
25

about the last day to file such motion, October 22, 2014, it is not feasible to have a hearing on such

26

dispositive motion by November 19, 2014; and

27

//

28

//

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER RE DEADLINES TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION BRIEFS AND HEARING DATE

Case No. 2:12-CV-02778-JAM-CKD

2

WHEREAS, the parties, recognizing this conflict, agree and stipulate to move only the

1
2

hearing date for dispositive motions to December 17, 2014 or to a subsequent date the court deems

3

necessary; and
WHEREAS, this request is not being made for the purpose of causing delay or for any other

4
5

improper purpose; and
WHEREAS, continuing the above-referenced deadlines will not prejudice any party or their

6
7

counsel; and

8

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by Plaintiff and

9

Defendants, through their respective attorneys of record, that this court continue the hearing on

10

dispositive motions from November 19, 2014 to Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., or a

11

subsequent date the Court deems necessary as to avoid any conflict with the parties’ stipulation

12

regarding time limits to file opposition and reply briefs to dispositive motions.

13
14

Date: September 29, 2014

SHIMODA LAW CORP.

15
By:

16
17

/s/ Galen T. Shimoda
Galen T. Shimoda
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUSI McFARLAND

18
19

Date: September 26, 2014

SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC

20
By:

21
22
23
24
25

//

26

//

27

//

28

/s/ Marcia A. Ross
Marcia A. Ross
(Approved on 9/26/2014)
Howard Sagaser
Ian B. Wieland
Attorneys for Defendant
ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

//

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER RE DEADLINES TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION BRIEFS AND HEARING DATE

Case No. 2:12-CV-02778-JAM-CKD

3

1

Date: September 26, 2014

LEVANGIE LAW GROUP

2
By:

3
4
5
6

/s/ Sharon B. Futerman
(Approved on 9/26/2014)
Sharon B. Futerman
LeVangie Law Group
Attorney for Defendant
TIM BIRMINGHAM

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: 9/29/2014

9

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

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER RE DEADLINES TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION BRIEFS AND HEARING DATE

Case No. 2:12-CV-02778-JAM-CKD

4