Panette v. Fillmore Center Associates, LP, a California Limited Partnership

Filing 36

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: Extending Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 8/31/2018. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eric L. Toscano, Esq. (SBN 268235) eric@tenantlawgroupsf.com Palomar Sanchez, Esq. (SBN 277060) palomar@tenantlawgroupsf.com TENANT LAW GROUP, PC 649 Mission Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-4128 Tel: (888) 510-7511 Fax: (888) 376-1662 Attorneys for Plaintiff WOO JA IM DHONG PANETTE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 11 12 WOO JA DHONG PANETTE, an Individual; 13 Plaintiff, 14 Case No. 17-CV-07036-MEJ v. 15 16 17 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS FILLMORE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LP, A California Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, the parties attended an Initial Case Management Conference before the Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on March 15, 2018. WHEREAS, the Court issued a Case Management Order ("Order") on March 21, 2018, setting certain deadlines. No trial date is scheduled. WHEREAS, the Order referred the parties to an early settlement conference before a magistrate judge, and to be completed by the end of July 2018. WHEREAS, the Order also set August 20, 2018, as the deadline to seek leave to amend pleadings. -1JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS 1 2 3 WHEREAS, the early settlement conference was initially scheduled for July 20, 2018, before the Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. WHEREAS, on July 12, 2018, Defendant requested a continuance of the early settlement 4 conference, and the Court rescheduled the early settlement conference to August 13, 2018. The 5 conference was completed. 6 WHEREAS, Tenant Law Group, PC has recently been retained as counsel, has provided 7 Defendant with a copy of the proposed amended complaint adding new defendants and causes of 8 action, and seeks an order extending the deadline for leave to amend the pleadings. 9 10 WHEREAS, Defendant has agreed to extend the deadline for leave to amend by two weeks to allow Defendant time to review the amended complaint. 11 12 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through 13 their respective counsel, that the Court issue an order extending the deadline to seek leave to 14 amend the pleadings from September 4, 2018, to September 18, 2018. 15 16 August 31, 2018 DATED: _________________ 17 __________________________________________ Palomar Sanchez, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff WOO JA DHONG PANETTE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Respectfully submitted, TENANT LAW GROUP, PC DATED: _________________ Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP __________________________________________ Eden Anderson, Esq. Attorney for Defendant FILLMORE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LP 25 26 27 I, Palomar Sanchez, attest that I have obtained concurrence from Eden Anderson in the filing of this Stipulation. See N.D. Cal. General Order 45 ยง 10(B). 28 -2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS 1 ORDER 2 The parties having so stipulated, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, it is 3 hereby ordered that the deadline to seek leave to amend the pleadings is extended to September 4 18, 2018, from September 4, 2018. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 Dated: _______________________ August 31, 2018 ______________________________________ THE HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS

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?