Jones v. Centerone Financial Services LLC

Filing 28

ORDER, Motions terminated: 27 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Initial Case Management Conference and Related Deadlines filed by Centerone Financial Services LLC. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/5/14 is continued to 12/12/2014 02:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 8/12/14. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2014)

Download PDF
1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership 2 Including Professional Corporations ANNA S. McLEAN, Cal. Bar No. 142233 3 amclean@sheppardmullin.com LIÊN H. PAYNE, Cal. Bar No. 291569 4 lpayne@sheppardmullin.com Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor 5 San Francisco, California 94111-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 6 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 7 Attorneys for Defendant CENTERONE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MARK R. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:14-cv-01673 SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES [Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12] 16 17 CENTERONE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a corporation; and DOES 1-50, 18 inclusive, [Complaint filed: March 3, 2014] Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:425740001.4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 Pursuant to the following stipulation, the parties have agreed to, and request that 2 the Court grant, a continuance of the September 5, 2014 Initial Case Management Conference 3 ("CMC") in this action to December 12, 2014 at 2:30 p.m., and that all related deadlines be 4 continued accordingly. 5 STIPULATION 6 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, defendant CenterOne Financial 7 Services, LLC (“CenterOne”) and plaintiff Mark R. Jones (“Jones”) stipulate and request as 8 follows: 9 WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Court entered the parties’ Stipulation and Order 10 Continuing Case Management and Related Deadlines, which continued the CMC until five weeks 11 after the hearing on CenterOne’s initial Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 23); 12 WHEREAS, on July 31, 2014, the Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff’s 13 Motion to Remand and Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint With Leave to 14 Amend (Docket No. 25), in which it set a deadline of August 15, 2014 for Jones to file his 15 amended complaint; 16 WHEREAS, it is anticipated that a further motion to dismiss will be filed as to the 17 claims in plaintiff’s amended complaint, which motion would be due no later than August 29, 18 2014 for hearing on November 7, 2014, pursuant to the Court’s currently available dates in Fall 19 2014; 20 WHEREAS, the current CMC date of September 5, 2014 would require the parties 21 to begin the Rule 26 meet-and-confer process shortly and file a joint case management statement 22 by August 29, 2014; 23 WHEREAS, the case schedule originally contemplated a five week period between 24 defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the initial CMC; 25 WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(1), the parties have conferred and agree 26 that continuing the CMC and related deadlines until after this Court has ruled on on CenterOne’s 27 renewed Motion to Dismiss would be in the parties’ best interests and in the interest of judicial 28 economy; SMRH:425740001.4 -1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 WHEREAS, with respect to Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(2), the previous time modifications in 2 this action include: a) the re-setting of the Initial CMC by the Clerk from July 30, 2014 to August 3 1, 2014 (Docket Nos. 4 and 11); b) the Clerk’s Notice of May 14, 2014 continuing the hearing for 4 CenterOne’s Motion to Dimiss to June 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (Docket No. 16); c) the Clerk’s 5 Notice of June 18, 2014 continuing the hearing on CenterOne’s Motion to Dimiss to August 1, 6 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (Docket No. 21), and d) the Court’s Stipulation and Order Continuing Case 7 Management and Related Deadlines, continuing the initial CMC to September 5, 2014 (Docket 8 No. 23); 9 WHEREAS, with respect to Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(3), a continuance of the initial CMC 10 and related deadlines until five weeks after the anticipated November 7, 2014 hearing on 11 defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss will not, at this early stage, have a significant effect on the 12 overall schedule for this case, and merely re-establishes the timing that existed when defendant’s 13 motion to dismiss was set for June 27, 2014 and the initial CMC was set for August 1, 2014; 14 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED that the 15 Court continue the current September 5, 2014 Initial CMC to December 12, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. 16 and continue all related deadlines accordingly. 17 E-FILING ATTESTATION 18 By her signature below, counsel for CenterOne attests that counsel for all parties 19 whose electronic signatures appear below have concurred in the filing of this Stipulation. 20 Dated: August 11, 2014 21 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By: /s/ Anna S. Mclean___________________ ANNA S. MCLEAN LIÊN H. PAYNE Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: 415-434-9100 Facsimile: 415-434-3947 amclean@sheppardmullin.com lpayne@sheppardmullin.com 22 23 24 25 26 27 Attorneys for Defendant CENTERONE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 28 SMRH:425740001.4 -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 Dated: August 11, 2014 KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP 2 By: /s/ Bryan Kemnitzer________________ BRYAN KEMNITZER Telephone: 415-632-1900 Facsimile: 415-632-1901 3 4 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK R. JONES 6 7 8 ORDER 9 10 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 Dated: 8/12/14 14 The Honorable Susan Illston United States District Court Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:425740001.4 -3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES

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?