Ansari v. Electronic Document Processing, Inc et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.(lhklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ALLEN ANSARI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PROCESSING, ) INC., a California corporation; DUSTIN K. ) FERRO, individually and in his official capacity; ) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No.: 5:12-CV-1245-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Plaintiff Allen Ansari has filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases 19 Should Be Related (“Motion to Relate”). ECF No. 43. Plaintiff seeks to relate Holmes v. 20 Electronic Document Processing, Inc., Case No. 5:12-CV-6193-HRL, and Paull v. Electronic 21 Document Processing, Inc., Case No. 5:12-CV-06194-PSG, to the instant action. Plaintiff’s 22 Motion to Relate is DENIED. 23 The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 12, 2012 is hereby continued 24 to February 28, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., the date for the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 25 Affirmative Defenses. All case deadlines remain as set forth in the case schedule issued on 26 September 10, 2012. See ECF No. 34. 27 28 1 Case No.: 12-CV-1245 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 Dated: December 10, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 12-CV-1245 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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?