Bankruptcy Estate of Chien Hwa Leachman et al v. Harris et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION AND ORDER CHANGING TIME re 17 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Steven Stoltz, Michelle Harris, 10 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT. Responses due by 11/23/2012. Replies du e by 11/30/2012. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2012 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Case Management Statement due by 1/11/2013. Case Management Conference set for 1/18/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on October 2, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012)

Download PDF
_____________________________________________ 1 Timothy J. Halloran 104498 J. Bart Flood 270697 MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-5530 Tel: (415) 788-1900 Fax: (415) 393-8087 - - 2 3 4 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant STEVEN STOLTZ DBA STOLTZ FAMILY LAW PRACTICE & MICHELLE HARRIS 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORHTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF CHIEN HWA LEACHMAN, AKA CHIEN HWA WANG, CHIEN HWA WANG-LEACHMAN by ARTHUR BRUNSWASSER, Authorized Agent, Case No.: CV-12-4072 (EMC) IPROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME Plaintiff, 13 [Pursuant to L.R. 6-21 14 v. 15 MICHELLE HARRIS, STEVEN STOLTZ DBA STOLTZ FAMILY LAW PRACTICE, DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Courtroom: Courtroom 5 17th Floor Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen - 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, 21 Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF CHIEN HWA LEACHMAN, AKA CHIEN 22 HWA WANG, CHIEN HWA WANG-LEACHMAN by ARTHUR BRUNSWASSER (“Plaintiff’), 23 Authorized Agent, and Defendants MICHELLE HARRIS AND STEVEN STOLTZ DBA STOLTZ 24 FAMILY LAW PRACTICE (“Attorneys”), submitted a stipulated request to change to time. 25 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 26 (1) The hearing date on Attorney’s motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 27 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, currently set for October 26, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., is moved to 14 December 7, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse, 450 28 ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF TIME Case No.: CV-12-4072 (EMC) - 1 _____________________ 1 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. 2 (2) Corresponding with the hearing date on Attorney’s FRCP 1 2(b)(6) motion being 3 rescheduled for December 7, 2012, Plaintiffs papers in opposition to Attorney’s FRCP 12(b)(6), 4 originally due on October 3, 2012, will now be due on November 23, 2012. Thereafter, Attorney’s 5 reply papers in support of the 1 2(b)(6) motion, currently due on October 10, 2012, will now be due on 6 November 30, 2012. (3) The Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for November 15, 2012, is 7 8 rescheduled to January 18, 2013. 9 10 (4) The dates set forth in the Court’s order setting initial case management conference and ADR deadlines (Dkt. No. 2) are modified as follows: 11 (a) The last day to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process 12 selection, and discovery plan; last day to file ADR certification; and last to file either Stipulation to 13 ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference; all currently set for October 10, 2012, are 14 rescheduled for December 28, 2012. 15 (b) The last day to file Rule 26(f) Report, complete with initial disclosures and joint 16 Case Management Statement; both currently set for October 24, 2012, are rescheduled for January 11, 17 2013. 18 19 DATED: October 2, 2012 20 21 By 22 Hon. Edward M. Chen United States District Court Northern District of California 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF TIME Case No.: CV-12-4072 (EMC) - 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?