Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DENYING AS MOOT STIPULATION FOR PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY. The case management conference is continued from July 25, 2014 to September 12, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than September 5, 2014. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 18, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

EUNICE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C-14-1570 MMC

v.

14

TRIPLE LEAF TEA INC.,

15

Defendant.

/

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STRIKE; CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
DENYING AS MOOT STIPULATION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO APPEAR
TELEPHONICALLY

16
17

Before the Court is defendant Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.’s “Motion to Dismiss, or in the

18

Alternative, Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint,” filed May 16, 2014. Plaintiff Eunice

19

Johnson has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and considered

20

the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter

21

suitable for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, and hereby VACATES

22

the hearing scheduled for July 25, 2014.

23

Further, in light of the pendency of the motion to dismiss, the Court hereby

24

CONTINUES the case management conference from July 25, 2014 to September 12,

25

2014, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than

26

September 5, 2014.

27
28

Finally, in light of the above, the Court hereby DENIES as moot the parties’ “Joint
Stipulation for Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Skye Resendes, to Appear at Motion to Dismiss and

1

Case Management Conference Hearings by Telephone,” filed July 15, 2014.1 For future

2

reference, however, the parties are advised that, although the Court may conduct case

3

management conferences by telephone for good cause shown, the Court does not conduct

4

hearings by telephone.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: July 18, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of the stipulation. Plaintiff
is reminded that, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and the Court’s Standing Orders,
parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that
is filed electronically.
2