Vigdor et al v. Super Lucky Casino, Inc. et al
Filing
53
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Document Regarding Completion of ADR. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
BENEDICT Y. HUR - # 224018
bhur@keker.com
JULIA L ALLEN - # 286097
jallen@keker.com
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPER LUCKY CASINO INC. and NICHOLAS TALARICO
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
OAKLAND DIVISION
11
12
DAN VIGDOR, an individual; STEPHEN
BRADWAY, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
Case No. 4:16-cv-5326 HSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
EXTEND ADR DEADLINE
v.
SUPER LUCKY CASINO INC., a
California corporation (formerly known as
12 GIGS, INC.); NICHOLAS TALARICO,
an individual; DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Dept.:
Judge:
Courtroom 2 - 4th Floor
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Date Filed: 9/1/2016
Trial Date: None Set
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND ADR DEADLINE
Case No. 4:16-cv-5326 HSG
1173189
1
2
The Court, having considered Defendants Motion to Extend the A
C
g
d
s’
ADR Deadli and the
ine,
parties’ positi
ions and arguments relat thereto fi
ted
finds:
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defenda
O
ants’ Motion to Extend A
n
ADR Deadlin is
ne
4
GRANTED for the reason stated in their moving papers, and the July 5, 2017 ADR deadline is
G
f
ns
t
g
d
5
ta
aken off cale
endar. The Court will se a new ADR deadline, as needed, a part of the case
C
et
R
as
e
6
sc
chedule.
7
8
9
10
11
12
RED.
IT IS SO ORDER
Dated: June 22, 2017
D
2
HO HAYW
ON.
WOOD S. GI
ILLIAM, JR
R.
UN
NITED STA
ATED DISTRICT COUR JUDGE
RT
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED ORDER GR
D]
RANTING MO
OTION TO EX
XTEND ADR D
DEADLINE
Case No. 4:16
6-cv-5326 HSG
G
11731
189
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?