Kalani v. Chiu et al
Filing
26
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/11/2013 re: #25 Stipulation and Proposed Order ORDERING defendant's responsive pleadings be filed on or before 9/30/2013; FURTHER ORDERED that a Joint Status Report in this matter be filed no later than 9/30/2013 if the action has not been settled in its entirety prior thereto. (Waggoner, D)
5
Brett L. McKague, Esq. (SBN: 160396)
Erica L. Rosasco, Esq., (SBN: 220836)
FLESHER McKAGUE LLP
193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 265
Folsom, CA 95630
Tele: (916) 358-9042
Fax: (916) 673-9672
blm@fbmllp.com; elr@fbmllp.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant
GALT ACE HARDWARE, INC.
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ROBERT KALANI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GABRIEL H. CHIU, Trustee of The Chiu
)
Family Revocable Trust, under Declaration of )
Trust dated January 23, 1991; LAI HAR
)
CHIU, Trustee of The Chiu Family Revocable )
Trust, under Declaration of Trust dated
)
January 23, 1991; SUBWAY 11234
)
PARTNERSHIP dba SUBWAY #11234;
)
GALT ACE HARWARE, INC. dba GALT
)
ACE HARDWARE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
No. 2:13-cv-01140-TLN-AC
AMENDED SECOND STIPULATION
EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT
GALT ACE HARDWARE, INC. TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND TO
CONTINUE LAST DATE TO FILE
STATUS REPORT; ORDER
23
24
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Robert Kalani (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorney of record, and
25
Defendant, Galt Ace Hardware, Inc. dba Galt Ace Hardware (“Defendant”), by and through its
26
attorney of record, and together with Plaintiff, (“the Parties”) in anticipation of being able to settle
27
this action, previously agreed to an extension of time for Defendant to file responsive pleadings by
28
not more than 28 days, and responsive pleadings were thereby due on September 11, 2013;
1
AMENDED SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT GALT ACE HARDWARE,
INC. TO FILE ITS RESPONSIVE PLEADING; ORDER
1
2
WHEREAS, since the last stipulation was entered into, the Parties are currently in
meaningful settlement negotiations and are optimistic that a settlement is imminent;
3
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to conserve the Court’s time and minimize the fees which will
4
be expended in this action in preparing responsive pleadings, and preparing the Status Report which
5
is currently due September 20, 2013, and instead wish to put their efforts and resources into
6
settlement;
7
WHEREAS, all other parties to this action have been dismissed due to settling with Plaintiff;
8
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the Parties that
9
Defendants may have to and including September 30, 2013 to file a responsive pleading in this
10
11
12
matter.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the Joint Status Report, which is currently due on
September 20, 2013, be due on September 30, 2013 if the matter has not settled prior thereto.
13
14
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
15
16
Dated: September 10, 2013
MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
17
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Robert Kalani
18
19
20
21
22
Dated: September 9, 2013
/s/ Erica L. Rosasco
Erica L. Rosasco
Attorneys for Defendant, Galt Ace Hardware,
Inc. dba Galt Ace Hardware
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
AMENDED SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT GALT ACE HARDWARE,
INC. TO FILE ITS RESPONSIVE PLEADING; ORDER
1
ORDER
2
The Parties having so stipulated, and good cause appearing,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s responsive pleadings be filed on or before
4
5
6
September 30, 2013;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Joint Status Report in this matter be filed no later than
September 30, 2013 if the action has not been settled in its entirety prior thereto.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11
Dated: September 11, 2013
12
13
14
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
AMENDED SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT GALT ACE HARDWARE,
INC. TO FILE ITS RESPONSIVE PLEADING; ORDER
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?