Crosthwaite et al v. Legg, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING 7 Request to Continue Case Management. Conference Case Management Statement due by 8/16/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/23/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 5/31/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2013)

Download PDF
1 Michele R. Stafford, Esq. (SBN 172509) Shivani Nanda, Esq. (SBN 253891) 2 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 882-7900 4 Facsimile: (415) 882-9287 mstafford@sjlawcorp.com 5 snanda@sjlawcorp.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 F. G. CROSTHWAITE, et al., Plaintiffs, 11 12 v. 13 LEGG, INC., a California corporation; ROBERT PAUL LEGG II, an individual; and 14 LEONARD ANTHONY D’ORAZIO aka SKIP D’ORAZIO, an individual, 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: C13-1065 JSW PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Date: Time: Location: Courtroom: Judge: June 10, 2013 1:30 p.m. 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco 11, 19th Floor, Honorable Jeffrey S. White 17 18 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Case Management Conference, currently on calendar 19 for June 10, 2013, be continued for approximately 60 – 90 days. Good cause exists for the 20 granting of the continuance, as follows: 21 1. As the Court’s records will reflect, this action was filed on March 8, 2013. 22 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel offered Defendants a payment plan to bring their account 23 current, in the form of a Notice and Acknowledgment and Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation 24 relative to all amounts currently known to be due and owing to Plaintiffs. Several emails were sent 25 to Defendants requesting confirmation as to whether or not Defendants intended to enter into a 26 payment plan, the most recent of which was sent on May 7, 2013, and requested Defendants’ 27 response by May 10, 2013. To date, Defendants have not responded. 28 3. On or about May 17, 2013, Plaintiffs provided the Summons, Complaint and -1REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC Case No.: C13-1065 JSW P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Legg, Inc\Pleadings\C13-1065 JSW - Request to Continue CMC 053113.doc 1 related documents to a process server with instructions to serve the documents on Defendants. The 2 process server advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that it made several attempts to serve Defendants, but 3 service of process had not yet been accomplished, and attempts would continue. 4 4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Case Management Conference, 5 currently scheduled for June 7, 2013, be continued for 60 - 90 days to allow for completion of 6 service of process on Defendants, and for Defendants response. 7 5. There are no issues that need to be addressed by the parties at the currently 8 scheduled Case Management Conference. In the interest of conserving costs as well as the Court’s 9 time and resources, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court continue the currently scheduled 10 Case Management Conference. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the above 12 entitled action, and that the foregoing is true of my own knowledge. 13 Executed this 31st day of May, 2013, at San Francisco, California. SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 14 15 By: 16 17 /S/ Shivani Nanda Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 The currently set Case Management Conference is hereby continued to 20 __________________________ at __________________, and all previously set deadlines and 1:30 p.m. August 23, 2013 21 dates related to this case are continued accordingly. 22 Date: ____________________ May 21, 2013 23 _________________________________________ HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 -2PROOF OF SERVICE Case No.: C13-1065 JSW P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Legg, Inc\Pleadings\C13-1065 JSW - Request to Continue CMC 053113.doc

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?