Feske et al v. MHC Thousand Trails Limited Partnership et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 26 Stipulation filed by MHC Operating Limited Partnership, MHC Thousand Trails Limited Partnership, Thousand Trails Management Services, Inc. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on October 13, 2011. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 JENNER & BLOCK LLP David J. Bradford (Pro Hac Vice) 2 Michael T. Brody (Pro Hac Vice) 353 North Clark Street 3 Chicago, Ilinois 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 4 Jean M. Doherty (CaL. Bar No. 264308) 5 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90071 6 Telephone: (213) DEFENDANTS COUNSEL FOR 239-5100 HUGHES 7 SHENKMAN & Kevin 1. Shenkan (CaL. Bar No. 223315) 8 8905 Wight Road Malibu, California 90265 9 Telephone: (310) 457-0970 10 R. REX PARRS LA W FIRM R. Rex Paris (CaL. Bar No. 965567) Alexander R. Wheeler (CaL. Bar No 239541) 11 2220 10th Street West, Suite 109 12 Lancaster, California 93534 Telephone: (800) 960-9005 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) 16 DAVID FESKE and TERI FESKE, individually and on behalf of Class Members, 17 18 Plaintiffs, v. 19 MHC THOUSAND TRAILS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; MHC OPERATING 20 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC., a Maryland 21 corporation;; THOUSAND TRAILS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; a Nevada 22 corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, 23 CASE NO. 11-04124 (PSG) STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 24 25 26 Stimilation Aiid Prol)osed Order 1 Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs David and Teri Feske and Defendants MHC 2 Thousand Trails Limited Parnership, MHC Operating Limited Partnership, Equity Lifestyle Properties, 3 Inc., and Thousand Trails Management Services, Inc., (together "the Parties"), hereby stipulate that the 4 Case Management Conference curently scheduled for October 18,2011, be continued to October 25, 5 6 2011. The Paries base their stipulation on the following grounds: 1. The Case Management Conference was originally scheduled for September 13,2011. 2. The Paries previously requested that that Case Management Conference be continued to 7 September 27 in order to give them adequate time to confer and prepare a case 8 management statement in advance of the Case Management Conference, and this Court 9 granted the Paries' request. 10 3. This Cour then sua sponte continued the Case Management Conference from September 11 27, 2011 to October 11, 2011, and then again continued the Case Management Conference 12 sua sponte from October 11,2011 to October 18,2011 at 2:00 p.m. 13 4. Lead counsel for Plaintiffs - from both firms representing Plaintiffs - are required to 14 attend a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court in Case No. BC464796 at 3:30 p.m. on 15 October 18, 2011. 16 5. The one-week modification requested wil not negatively impact the schedule for the case, 17 given that no Case Management Conference has yet been held, and no motions have been 18 filed. 19 20 II / / II / II 21 II / 22 23 / II II / 24 / II 25 II / 26 2 Stiimlation And Pnmosed Order 1 In light of the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request that the Cour enter the Paries' 2 Stipulation and continue the Case Management Conference until October 25,2011. 3 4 Dated: October 12,2011 Respectfully submitted: SHENKMAN & HUGHES 5 KEVIN 1. SHENKMAN 6 7 By: lsI Kevin 1. Shenkan 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs David and Teri Feske, individually and on behalf of Class Members 9 Dated: October 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted: 10 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 11 DAVID J. BRADFORD MICHAEL T. BRODY JEAN M. DOHERTY 12 13 14 By: lsI Jean M. Doherty Attorneys for Defendants MHC Thousand Trails Limited Partnership; MHC Operating Limited Parnership; Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.; and Thousand Trails Management Services, Inc. 15 16 17 18 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 22 DATE: October 13, 2011 The Honorable Paul S. Grewal 23 24 25 26 3 Stipulation And Prol)osed Order PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 3 I, Diana Valdez, declare I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Californa. I am over the age of 18 and not a pary to the within action. My business address is Jenner & Block LLP, 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500, Los Angeles, California 90071. 4 On October 12,2011, I served the documents described below: 5 STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 6 7 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 8 9 10 II Kevin 1. Shenkan Mary R. Hughes Shenkan & Hughes 28905 Wight Road Malibu, CA 90265 R. Rex Paris Alexander R. Wheeler Kitty K. Szeto R. Rex Pars Law Firm 42220 10th St West, Suite 109 Lancaster, CA 93534 12 it BY U.S. MAIL: By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage 13 14 15 16 thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. I am familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailng. Under that practice, it would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. o BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: In addition to service by overnight delivery, I transmitted a copy of 17 the foregoing document(s) on this date via electronic mail to the e-mail addresses shown below 18 o BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and 19 delivery on this date in accordance with standard overnight delivery procedures. 20 21 22 o (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. it (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 25 26 Executed on October 12,2011, at Lo~, Ca1ifOTQi~ A£Valdez ~ iana 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE

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?