Scolaro v. Vons Companies, Inc.
Filing
61
ORDER granting 60 Stipulation. Daubert Hearing reset for 2/13/2020 at 09:30 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/31/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jack P. Burden, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 6918
BACKUS, CARRANZA & BURDEN
3050 South Durango Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Tel: (702) 872-5555
Fax: (702) 872-5545
jburden@backuslaw.com
shirleyjin@backuslaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
The Vons Companies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
FRANCINE SCOLARO,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01979-JAD-VCF
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.,
12
Defendant.
13
14
15
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DAUBERT HEARING
(SECOND REQUEST)
Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through its counsel of record,
16
the law firm of BACKUS, CARRANZA & BURDEN, and Plaintiff Francine Scolaro (“Plaintiff”), by
17
and through her counsel of record, the law firm of BLACK & LOBELLO, hereby state, stipulate and
18
agree as follows:
19
1. On December 27, 2019, the Court issued an Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection,
20
Denying Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Deferring Ruling on
21
Motion in Limine (ECF No. 56) in which the Court ordered, among other things, that a
22
Daubert hearing is set for January 17, 2020, at 9 a.m. to determine the admissibility
23
and reliability of Plaintiff’s expert, Kimberly Ann Phillips’ causation opinion.
24
25
2. On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Continuance of Daubert Hearing (First
Request) (ECF No. 57) requesting that the Daubert hearing be continued as Ms.
1
1
2
Phillips was unavailable on January 17, 2020 due to previously arranged travel plans.
3. On January 8, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
3
for Continuance of Daubert Hearing (First Request) (ECF No. 58) stating that
4
Defendant has no opposition to Plaintiff’s request to continue the Daubert hearing and
5
provided the Court with defense counsel’s unavailable dates. However, defense
6
counsel inadvertently omitted February 7, 2020 as an unavailable date and he is going
7
to be out of town on that date.
8
9
10
4. On January 9, 2020, the Court issued a Minute Order continuing the Daubert hearing
to February 7, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
5. As defense counsel is unavailable on February 7, 2020, the parties respectfully request
11
that the Court continue the Daubert hearing to a date and time after February 7, 2020.
12
Both counsel and Ms. Phillips are available on February 10, 13, and 14.
13
14
15
6. The parties agree and stipulate to the foregoing in good faith and not for purposes of
delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
16
17
DATED this 28th day of January, 2020.
DATED this 28th day of January, 2020.
18
BACKUS, CARRANZA & BURDEN
BLACK & LOBELLO
/s/ Jack P. Burden
Jack P. Burden, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 6918
Xiao Wen Jin, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 13901
3050 South Durango Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Attorneys for Defendant
/s/ Steve Mack
Steve Mack, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 4000
10777 W. Twain Ave., Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Attorneys for Plaintiff
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
Upon review of the Stipulation by the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the
Court hereby orders as follows:
IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the Daubert hearing currently set for February 7, 2020 is
VACATED and CONTINUED to _______________, _____, 2020 at ______ __.m.
February 13, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.
DATED this 31st day of ____ day of ____________________, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED this January, 2020.
7
______________________________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
Respectfully submitted by:
12
BACKUS, CARRANZA & BURDEN
13
14
15
16
17
___________________________
Jack P. Burden, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 6918
Xiao Wen Jin, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 13901
3050 South Durango Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Attorneys for Defendant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
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?