Kapu Gems et al v. Diamond Imports, Inc. et al

Filing 64

SCHEDULING ORDER ON COUNTER-DEFENDANT KALPESH VAGHANI'S MOTION TO DISMISS DIAMOND IMPORTS, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES; CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TO JULY 22, 2016. In light of the extensions granted, the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is continued to July 22, 2016, the Court being unavailable on July 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 14, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2016)

Download PDF
FOREMAN & BRASSO UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER ON COUNTER-DEFENDANT KALPESH VAGHANI’S MOTION TO DISMISS DIAMOND IMPORTS, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES; CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TO JULY 22, 2016 [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER ON COUNTERDEFENDANT KALPESH VAGHANI’S MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2016 to reply to Defendant Diamond Imports, Inc.’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED that the following schedule on Counter-Defendant Kalpesh Vaghani’s Motion to Dismiss is established: (1) Defendant Diamond Imports, Inc.’s shall have an extension up to and including June 21, 2016 to respond to Counter-Defendant Kalpesh Vaghani’s Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Counter-Defendant Kalpesh Vaghani’s shall have an extension up to and including June 28, 2016 to reply to Defendant Diamond Imports, Inc.’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the extensions granted, the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is hereby CONTINUED to July 22, 2016, the Court being unavailable on July 15, 2016. 11 DATED: June 14, 2016 9 12 ___________________________ Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER ON COUNTERDEFENDANT KALPESH VAGHANI’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2

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?