Carr v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc.
Filing
41
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 40 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Andrew Carr, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 40 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DIS MISS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, 6 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6). Case Management Statement due by 4/25/2013. Case Management Conference set for 5/2/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/6/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)
1 ALAN HARRIS (CA Bar No. 146079)
HARRIS & RUBLE
2 6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90038
(323) 962-3777
3 Telephone: (323) 962-3004
Facsimile:
4 DAVID S. HARRIS (CA Bar No. 215224)
5 NORTH BAY LAW GROUP #2
116 E. Blithedale Avenue, Suite
California 94941-2024
6 Mill Valley, (415) 388-8788
Telephone:
7 Facsimile: (415) 388-8770
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANDREW CARR
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 ANDREW CARR, individually and on behalf
14 of all others similarly situated,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Plaintiff,
15
16
Case No.: 12-CV-02980-EMC
v.
AND
17 BEVERLY HEALTHSERVICES, INC.,
REHABILITATION
18
19
Courtroom:
Judge:
GOLDEN LIVINGCENTER - PETALUMA,
and DOES 1 to 50,
5
Hon. Edward M. Chen
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS
AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1
The parties hereby stipulate as follows:
2
WHEREAS, Defendant Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc. filed a Motion to
3 Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6) (“Motion to Dismiss”), which has been fully-briefed by all
4 parties;
5
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2013, prior to the Court conducting a hearing on the Motion
6 to Dismiss, the parties engaged in private mediation with Mr. Michael Loeb at JAMS in San
7 Francisco. At that time, progress was made but the parties were unable to settle the case. The
8 parties agreed, however, to engage in additional investigation and schedule a second mediation,
9 which will take place on or before April 5, 2013.
10
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, in order to allow the parties to
11 engage in additional fact finding and a second day of mediation with Mr. Loeb, the parties have
12 stipulated to continuing the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and the Case Management
13 Conference until May 2, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco, if that date
14 is convenient to the Court. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement at least one
15 week prior to the Case Management Conference.
16
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
17
Respectfully submitted,
18 Date: March 5, 2013
19
HARRIS & RUBLE
By
20
/s/
Alan Harris
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANDREW CARR
21
22
23
Date: March 5, 2013
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
24
By
25
/s/
Carly Chu
Attorneys for Defendant
BEVERLY HEALTH AND
REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.
26
27
28
-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS
AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
2
The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and the Case Management Conference is continued
3 to May 2, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management
4 Statement at least one week prior to the Conference.
DISTRI
__________________________________
ERED
Honorable Edward M.RD
SO O Chen
IT IS
United States District Court Judge
8
11
A
H
ER
LI
RT
10
J
FO
NO
9
. Chen
ward M
udge Ed
R NIA
S
UNIT
ED
6
6 DATED: March__, 2013
7
CT
C
RT
U
O
5
ES
AT
T
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS
AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
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?