San Francisco Residence Club, Inc et al v. Leader Bulso & Nolan PLC et al
Filing
6
STIPULATION AND ORDER re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction to continue hearing and response dates filed by Leader Bulso & Nolan PLC, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 4 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 3 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction to continue hearing and response dates, 3 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . Responses due by 4/9/2013. Replies due by 4/16/2013. Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/11/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DANIEL W. BALLESTEROS - BAR# 142003
dwb@hogefenton.com
ALISON BUCHANAN – BAR# 215710
apb@hogefenton.com
LISA L. GORECKI – BAR# 262984
llg@hogefenton.com
HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.
Sixty South Market Street, Suite 1400
San Jose, California 95113-2396
Phone: (408) 287-9501
Fax: (408) 287-2583
Attorneys for Defendants, LEADER
BULSO & NOLAN, PLC and EUGENE
N. “GINO” BULSO
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)
12
13
14
15
SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENCE CLUB,
INC., THOMAS O’SHEA and ANNE
O’SHEA, as Trustees of the Trust of
Thomas and Anne O’Shea, KATE LARKIN
DONAHUE, THOMAS O’SHEA,
individually, TAK TECH POINT, LLC, KKA
CAS, LCC, and GRANDVIEW CREDIT,
LLC,
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00844-EMC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
AND IMPROPER VENUE, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER FOR
IMPROPER VENUE, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER FOR
CONVENIENCE
vs.
LEADER BULSO & NOLAN, PLC,
EUGENE N. “GINO” BULSO, and DOES
1-20, inclusive,
Defendants.
21
22
Defendants, LEADER BULSO & NOLAN, PLC and EUGENE N. “GINO” BULSO,at
23
the request of counsel for Plaintiffs, SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENCE CLUB, INC.,
24
THOMAS O’SHEA and ANNE O’SHEA, as Trustees of the Trust of Thomas and Anne
25
O’Shea, KATE LARKIN DONAHUE, THOMAS O’SHEA, individually, TAK TECH POINT,
26
LLC, KKA CAS, LCC, and GRANDVIEW CREDIT, LLC, agree to postpone the hearing and
27
response deadlines on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS OR TRANSFER
1
Venue, or in the Alternative to Transfer for Improper Venue, or in the alternative to Transfer
2
for Convenience currently set for April 18, 2013 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 5 of this Court.
3
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their
4
respective attorneys of record that the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack
5
of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, or in the Alternative to Transfer for Improper Venue, or
6
in the alternative to Transfer for Convenience is moved to May 9, 2013 at 1:30 P.M. in
7
Courtroom 5 of this Court. It is further stipulated that the responses are now due by April
8
9, 2013 and the replies are due by April 16, 2013.
9
DATED:
HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.
10
11
By /s/ Daniel Ballesteros
Daniel W. Ballesteros
Attorneys for Defendants
12
13
14
DATED:
15
By /s/ Michael Brook
Michael J.M. Brook
Attorney for Plaintiffs
16
17
18
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
19
Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, or in the Alternative to Transfer for Improper
20
Venue, or in the alternative to Transfer for Convenience is moved to May 9, 2013 at 1:30
21
P.M. in Courtroom 5 of this Court. The responses are due by April 9, 2013 and the replies
22
due by April 16, 2013.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
RT
2
J
R NIA
. Chen
ward M
udge Ed
FO
NO
28
D
RDERE
OO
Hon. Edward M. Chen
IT IS S
LI
27
3/11/13
H
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
ER
C
DISMISS OR TRANSFER
N
F
A
26
DATED:
UNIT
ED
25
RT
U
O
24
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
D IS T IC T O
R
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?