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)

Download PDF
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?