Opinion
Case No.: 2:11-CV-01147-WBS-DAD
10-21-2011
CYTOSPORT, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. MONSTER MUSCLE, INC., a New York business entity; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
Peter M. de Jonge Jed H. Hansen THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, L.L.P. -and- MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP Attorneys at Law GLENN W. PETERSON Attorneys for Plaintiff CytoSport, Inc.
Glenn W. Peterson, Esq. (SBN 126173)
MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP
Peter M. de Jonge, Esq. (Utah SBN 7185)
Jed H. Hansen, Esq. (Utah SBN 10679)
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CytoSport, Inc.
(SECOND) APPLICATION TO CONTINUE JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Senior United States District Judge
William B. Shubb
APPLICATION
By order dated April 28, 2011, this matter was set for an Initial Scheduling Conference to be heard on August 22, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. On August 4, 2011, we applied to continue the scheduling conference to October 31, 2011. The application was granted by order of this court entered August 4, 2011 [Doc. 8]. By way of this second application, we now seek an additional 60-day extension of the conference date for the reasons set forth below.
Immediately after this action was filed, defendant was contacted through counsel in New York. A settlement dialogue ensued, and has continued in earnest since the initial contact was made. As a precautionary measure, we effectuated service of the summons and filed proof thereof on September 15, 2011 [Doc. 9].
Defense counsel has indicated a strong preference to resolve this action without the necessity of filing an appearance or a stipulated judgment. Plaintiff's counsel is doing everything possible to accommodate that preference. Settlement negotiations have continued in earnest and we are hopeful that this matter will be concluded without the necessity of further court filings, except of course the request for dismissal. While recognizing that we are in arrears of the court-ordered schedule for a Joint Status Report, we believe that these circumstances warrant a 60-day postponement of the Pretrial Scheduling Conference, and respectfully request that the Court order that the scheduling conference be continued for approximately 60 days. We are confident that a voluntary dismissal will precede the new conference date.
Peter M. de Jonge
Jed H. Hansen
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, L.L.P.
-and
MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP
Attorneys at Law
By: GLENN W. PETERSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CytoSport, Inc.
I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP
Glenn W. Peterson
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing application, and good cause appearing, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this matter is continued to December 12, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. If joint scheduling remains an issue at that time, a joint status report shall be filed no later than November 28, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE