From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curtis v. Vancary, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Jul 18, 2012
Case No. 1:12-CV-00922-AWI-DLB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:12-CV-00922-AWI-DLB

07-18-2012

ALBERT GEORGE CURTIS, Plaintiff, v. VANCARY, INC., aka ROBERT A. CARY & KAREN A. CARY, INC. dba A & W RESTAURANT aka A & W ALL- AMERICAN FOOD aka A & W HAMBURGER; KAREN A. CARY aka KAREN A. CARY, TRUSTEE OF THE KAREN A CARY "CREDIT SHELTER TRUST" AND TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT A. CARY AND KAREN A. CARY 2008 LIVING TRUST, Defendants.

MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C. Tanya E. Moore, Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAMS, JORDAN, BRODERSEN & PRITCHETT Nick A. Pritchett, Attorneys for Defendants


Nick Pritchett #210984

Russell P. Burke #249581

WILLIAMS, JORDAN, BRODERSEN

& PRITCHETT LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

CONTINUE DEFENDANTS'

DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO

COMPLAINT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned that:

WHEREAS, the Complaint in this action was served on Defendant VANCARY, INC., aka ROBERT A. CARY & KAREN A. CARY, INC. dba A & W RESTAURANT aka A & W ALL-AMERICAN FOOD aka A & W HAMBURGER on June 13, 2012.

WHEREAS, the Complaint in this action was served on Defendant KAREN A. CARY aka KAREN A. CARY, TRUSTEE OF THE KAREN A CARY "CREDIT SHELTER TRUST" AND TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT A. CARY AND KAREN A. CARY 2008 LIVING TRUST on June 13, 2012.

WHEREAS, this is Defendants' second request for an extension of time. The first extension of time was granted by the Plaintiff within the statutory allowance; thus, court approval is required for a further extension of time.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants are in settlement negotiations at this time.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has sent to Defendants a proposed settlement agreement containing monetary and equitable demands for Defendants' review to settle this case.

WHEREAS, Parties agree that settlement of this case would save valuable court time and resources.

WHEREAS, Parties have agreed to extend Defendants' time to respond to the complaint until August 21, 2012, in an effort to settle this case, subject to the Court's approval.

WHEREAS, this extension does not alter any date or event already set by the Court.

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, through their respective attorneys of record, that the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be extended up to and including August 21, 2012 pending court approval.

MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.

__________________________________

Tanya E. Moore, Attorneys for Plaintiff

WILLIAMS, JORDAN, BRODERSEN & PRITCHETT

__________________________________

Nick A. Pritchett, Attorneys for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Curtis v. Vancary, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Jul 18, 2012
Case No. 1:12-CV-00922-AWI-DLB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Curtis v. Vancary, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT GEORGE CURTIS, Plaintiff, v. VANCARY, INC., aka ROBERT A. CARY …

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

Date published: Jul 18, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:12-CV-00922-AWI-DLB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)