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.)
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?