Mammen et al v. County of Sacramento et al
Filing
109
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/6/2017 ORDERING the Close of Phase 2 Discovery is EXTENDED to 11/9/2017. (Washington, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
John A. Lavra, CSB No.: 114533
Amanda L. McDermott, CSB No.: 253651
3620 American River Drive, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95864
Phone: 916-974-8500
Facsimile: 916-974-8510
Attorneys for Defendants
County of Sacramento;
Stephanie Lynch;
Michelle Callejas;
Debra Williams;
Renae Rodocker;
Luis Villa; and
Craig Larkin
LEIGH LAW GROUP
Jay T. Jambeck SBN #226018
Mandy G. Leigh SBN # 225748
870 Market Street, Suite 1157
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-399-9155
Facsimile: 415-795-3733
13
14
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
A.P. (a minor); Robin Mammen
and Larry Mammen individually
and as Guardian Ad Litem
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.P. (a minor); ROBIN MAMMEN and
LARRY MAMMEN individually and as
Guardian ad Litem for A.P.,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING,
)
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, STEPHANIE )
LYNCH, LUIS VILLA; MICHELLE
)
CALLEJAS, DEBRA WILLIAMS, CRAIG )
LARKIN, RENAE RODOCKER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: 2:13-cv-01588-JAM-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Page 1
COMES NOW THE PARTIES by and through their respective attorneys and subject to
1
2
the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the following modifications
3
and/or amendments to this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order dated June 30, 2017 [ECF No.
4
105]:
5
6
That the close of phase 2 discovery, currently set for September 22, 2017, be moved
to November 9, 2017;
7
8
9
10
11
12
WHEREAS, counsel for all parties have met and discussed the posture of this case, and
agree that it would be in the interests of justice and judicial economy and that good causes exists
for the modification of the scheduling order;
WHEREAS, the parties continue to engage in settlement discussions and need additional
time to determine whether resolution of this matter without further litigation is possible;
13
WHEREAS, the parties require additional time to complete expert discovery;
14
WHEREAS, the parties do not intend to file further dispositive motions;
15
WHEREAS, this request is not being made for the purpose of delay, or any other
16
17
improper purpose; and
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the parties
18
that this Court modifies the pretrial deadlines as set forth above.
19
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
20
Dated: September 6, 2017
LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
21
By: /s/ Amanda L. McDermott
JOHN A. LAVRA
AMANDA L. MCDERMOTT
22
23
24
Dated: September 6, 2017
LEIGH LAW GROUP
25
26
27
/s/ Jay T. Jambeck
By: JAY T. JAMBECK
MANDY G. LEIGH
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Page 2
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
Dated: _9/6/2017_________________
/s/ John A. Mendez
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Page 3
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?