Alvarez Zardain v. IPACPA US, Inc.

Filing 43

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/13/2016 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 37 Motion for Relief from the Pretrial Scheduling Order to 1/12/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; ORDERING Defendant TRC Holdings Inc. to file an Opposition by 12/8/2016; ORDERING the plaintiff to file a Reply by 12/15/2016. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DOWNEY BRAND LLP JAMIE P. DREHER (Bar No. 209380) CHRISTOPHER B. BURTON (Bar No. 296582) 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-4731 Telephone: (916) 444-1000 Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 jdreher@downeybrand.com cburton@downeybrand.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 12 ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN, an individual, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. IPACPA US, INC., a Delaware corporation, TRC HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-20, Defendants. 17 CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01207-MCE-EFB STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: December 15, 2016 2:00 p.m. Courtroom 7 Hon. Morrison C. England 18 19 RECITALS 20 21 A. 22 On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff Enrique Alvarez Zardain (“Plaintiff”) filed his 23 Motion Seeking Relief From Pretrial Scheduling Order (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 37.) The 24 Motion was originally set for hearing on December 1, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. B. 25 On November 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order to Continue 26 Hearing on Motion Seeking Relief From Pretrial Scheduling Order, seeking to continue the 27 hearing on the motion to December 15, 2016. (Dkt. No. 39.) On November 17, 2016, the Court 28 entered the Order continuing the hearing to December 15, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. (Dkt. No. 40.) 1464934.1 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 1 C. The parties continue to discuss a settlement that would resolve this action in its 2 entirety and therefore wish to further continue the current hearing date on the Motion, and all 3 associated briefing deadlines, to avoid incurring additional attorneys’ fees at this time. 4 5 STIPULATION 6 7 THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the parties, by and through their attorneys of record, that: 8 9 1. Seeking Relief From Pretrial Scheduling Order be vacated and continued to January 12, 2017, at 10 2:00 p.m. 11 2. 12 DOWNEY BRAND LLP The current hearing date of December 15, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. for Plaintiff’s Motion Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc.’s opposition to the Motion will be due to be filed on December 8, 2016, and Plaintiff’s reply will be due to be filed on December 15, 2016. 13 14 DATED: November 30, 2016 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 15 By: 16 /s/ Christopher B. Burton JAMIE P. DREHER CHRISTOPHER B. BURTON Attorneys for Plaintiff Enrique Alvarez Zardain 17 18 19 DATED: November 30, 2016 HILL RIVKINS BROWN & ASSOCIATES 20 21 By: /s/ Adam C. Brown (as authorized on 11-30-16) ADAM C. BROWN Attorneys for Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc. 22 23 24 ORDER 25 26 27 In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Relief from Pretrial Scheduling Order is continued from December 15, 28 1464934.1 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 1 2016 to January 12, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc.’s opposition to the Motion 2 is due December 8, 2016, and Plaintiff’s reply must be filed not later than December 15, 2016. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2016 6 7 8 9 10 11 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1464934.1 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 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?