Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C-14-1570 MMC
TRIPLE LEAF TEA INC.,
ORDER VACATING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STRIKE; CONTINUING CASE
DENYING AS MOOT STIPULATION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO APPEAR
Before the Court is defendant Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.’s “Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint,” filed May 16, 2014. Plaintiff Eunice
Johnson has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and considered
the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter
suitable for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, and hereby VACATES
the hearing scheduled for July 25, 2014.
Further, in light of the pendency of the motion to dismiss, the Court hereby
CONTINUES the case management conference 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.
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
Case Management Conference Hearings by Telephone,” filed July 15, 2014.1 For future
reference, however, the parties are advised that, although the Court may conduct case
management conferences by telephone for good cause shown, the Court does not conduct
hearings by telephone.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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.
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?