Chahal v. Lonergan et al

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting 39 Motion to Vacate; Denying as Moot 40 Motion to Shorten Time; Denying as Moot 51 Motion to Strike; Denying as Moot 54 Stipulation. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 GURBAKSH CHAHAL, Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 17-CV-01036-LHK ORDER LIFTING STAY OF DISCOVERY AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE v. 15 BILL LONERGAN, et al., 16 Defendants. Re: Dkt Nos. 39, 40, 51, 54 17 18 On May 31, 2017, the Court granted a stay of discovery. ECF No. 36. The only basis for 19 that stay of discovery was Plaintiff’s shareholder derivative causes of action. On June 16, 2017, 20 the Court granted Plaintiff’s stipulation to dismiss his shareholder derivative claims against 21 Defendants. ECF No. 38. Thus, Plaintiff has removed the basis for the Court’s stay of discovery. 22 On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Discovery Stay. ECF No. 39. On June 30, 23 2017, Defendant filed an opposition. ECF No. 52. Because the basis of the Court’s stay of 24 discovery has been eliminated, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Discovery Stay. 25 On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Administrative Motion to Shorten Time for a Hearing 26 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Discovery Stay. ECF No. 40. On June 19, 2017, Defendant filed 27 an opposition. ECF No. 42. On June 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply and an accompanying 28 1 Case No. 17-CV-01036-LHK ORDER LIFTING STAY OF DISCOVERY AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1 declaration. ECF No. 46. Because Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Discovery Stay has been granted, 2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time for a Hearing on that motion is DENIED as moot. 3 On June 30, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike the reply and the declaration 4 accompanying the reply in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time for a Hearing on 5 Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Discovery. ECF No. 51. However, because the Motion to Shorten 6 Time has been denied as moot, the Court need not consider the reply or the declaration 7 accompanying the reply in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time. Therefore, Defendant’s 8 Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. 9 On July 5, 2017, the parties stipulated to a briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to Strike to match the current briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 54; see 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 also ECF No. 47 (docket entry for Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss stating, “Responses due by 12 8/4/2017. Replies due by 8/25/2017”). Because the Court has denied Defendant’s Motion to 13 Strike as moot, the parties’ stipulation regarding the briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to 14 Strike is DENIED as moot. 15 The Court sets a further case management conference for July 19, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. By 16 July 14, 2017, the parties shall file a joint case management statement that shall include a joint 17 proposed case schedule through trial. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 22 Dated: July 10, 2017 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 17-CV-01036-LHK ORDER LIFTING STAY OF DISCOVERY AND SETTING 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?