Edwards v. County of Modoc et al

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/20/15 re: 14 ORDERING and APPROVING the hearing on 12 Motion to Strike currently set for 5/28/15 at 2:00 is hereby CONTINUED to be heard on 6/25/15 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom No. 7. Motion Hearing RESET for 6/25/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. WYATT 3575 SUNSET DRIVE (96001) POST OFFICE BOX 992338 REDDING, CA 96099-2338 (530) 244-6060 2 3 (530) 244-6069 Facsimile 4 5 6 7 STATE BAR NO. 081128 ALLISON and DEBBIE ALLISON Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF MODOC, MODOC COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT; BILLY HOLSHOUSER AND MIKE POINDEXTER 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 ---oo0oo--- 12 TYLER EDWARDS, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 v. COUNTY OF MODOC, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 2:14-cv-02646-MCEKJN PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ORDER THEREON 19 20 21 STIPULATION 22 COME NOW the parties herein, Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through 23 their respective counsels of record, EUGENE B. CHITTOCK for the Plaintiff and 24 JAMES A. WYATT for the Defendants, and hereby stipulate as follows: 25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff set his hearing on his Motion to Strike Defendants’ 26 27 28 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. WYATT P. O. BOX 992338 29 REDDING, CA 96099-2338 (530) 244-6060 30 31 1 Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 2:14-CV-02646-MCE-KJN 1 Affirmative Defenses to be heard on May 28, 2015, at 2:00 pm, in Courtroom 7 of 2 the Federal Courthouse located in Sacramento, California; 3 WHEREFORE, prior to counsel for plaintiff selecting May 28, 2015, as the 4 noticed hearing date, counsel for defendants had committed to be outside the 5 country starting May 14, 2015 through June 1, 2015, as a result of a paid vacation; 6 WHEREFORE, counsel for plaintiff did not clear the proposed hearing date 7 of May 28, 2015, with counsel for defendants before noticing his motion for that 8 date; 9 10 11 12 WHEREFORE, Defendants intend on filing a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike on or before May 14, 2015; and WHEREFORE, Defendants requested Plaintiff continue the hearing to anytime after June 2, 2015, and Plaintiff has agreed. 13 NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their 14 respective counsels of record, hereby agree and do stipulate that the hearing 15 currently set for May 28, 2015, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 7, to hear Plaintiff’s 16 Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, be continued to June 25, 2015, 17 at 2:00 pm, or at any later time selected by the Court, in Courtroom 7, before the 18 Honorable Morrison C. England. 19 DATED: April 8, 2015 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. WYATT 20 21 _____/S/ James A. Wyatt____________ JAMES A. WYATT Attorney for Defendants 22 23 24 25 DATED: April 8, 2015 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE B. CHITTOCK 26 27 28 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. WYATT P. O. BOX 992338 29 REDDING, CA 96099-2338 (530) 244-6060 30 31 2 Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 2:14-CV-02646-MCE-KJN 1 _____/S/ Eugene B. Chittock____________ EUGENE B. CHITTOCK Attorney for Plaintiff 2 3 4 ORDER 5 UPON consideration and good cause appearing therefore, the above 6 Stipulation of the parties to this action is approved. The hearing currently set for 7 May 28, 2015 at 2:00, is hereby continued to be heard on June 25, 2015 at 2:00 pm 8 in Courtroom No. 7. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2015 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. WYATT P. O. BOX 992338 29 REDDING, CA 96099-2338 (530) 244-6060 30 31 3 Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 2:14-CV-02646-MCE-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?