Becerra v. Newpark Mall Dental Group et al
Filing
21
ORDER requiring status update by 1/17/2013. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/7/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
GRICELDA BECERRA,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
Plaintiff,
17
ORDER REQUIRING STATUS
UPDATE
v.
NEWPARK MALL DENTAL GROUP, et al.,
15
16
No. C 12-01325 LB
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff Gricelda Becerra filed a complaint against Defendants Newpark
18
Mall Dental Group (“Newpark Mall Dental”) and Roger Chang (collectively, “Defendants”),
19
alleging wrongful discharge, failure to provide plan information, and breach of fiduciary duty.
20
Complaint, ECF No. 1. On July 23, 2012, the court granted Defendants’ motion to stay the action
21
and compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the underlying employment contract
22
between Ms. Becerra and Defendants. Order Granting Motion to Stay, ECF No. 20. In doing so, the
23
court ordered the parties to submit to the court a status update no later than 30 days after a final
24
ruling by the arbitrator is issued.
25
The court has not received a status update yet, so the court presumes that no final arbitration
26
ruling has been issued. Nevertheless, the court now ORDERS the parties to file a written status
27
update, informing the court about the status of the arbitration proceedings, no later than Thursday,
28
January 17, 2013.
C 12-01325 LB
ORDER
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 12-01325 LB
ORDER
2
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?