From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D'Lil v. Riverboat Delta King, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2012
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-02230-WBS-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-02230-WBS-JFM

07-11-2012

HOLLYNN D'LIL, Plaintiff, v. RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC.; CITY OF SACRAMENTO; OLD SACRAMENTO BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants.

Thimesch Law Offices TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ. (No. 148213) Attorney for Plaintiff HOLLYNN D'LIL CHARLES L. POST, State Bar No. 160443 weintraub genshlea chediak tobin & tobin LAW CORPORATION Attorneys for Defendant RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC. EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney (SBN 167027) KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 186055) CITY OF SACRAMENTO Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO


Thimesch Law Offices

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ. (No. 148213)

Attorney for Plaintiff HOLLYNN D'LIL

CHARLES L. POST, State Bar No. 160443

weintraub genshlea chediak

tobin & tobin

LAW CORPORATION

Attorneys for Defendant

RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC.

EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney (SBN 167027)

KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 186055)

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Civil Rights


STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER

TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER

DATES; REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO A

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE THE

ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO THE COURT:

The parties request that the Court grant an extension of all dates in the current trial scheduling order by approximately 120 days to accommodate the recent substitution of CHARLES POST, ESQ. as new counsel for Defendant Riverboat Delta King, Inc. He requests a brief additional period of time to familiarize himself with the facts and current posture of the case.. The parties also seek the modification of certain scheduling order dates to allow for discussions concerning time to accommodate a possible resolution of the case.

As an update, Plaintiff represents that on November 20, 2011, she circulated to all Defendants a proposed consent decree to resolve all claims, and more recently she served requests for discovery, including written requests, depositions, subpoenas and a site inspection. Attorney POST was retained and substituted as counsel of record on July 5, 2012. He seeks time to assess and respond to this discovery. However, the Parties also seek the additional time to discuss a accommodate possible settlement while managing costs. More recent talks about resolution are cooperative. The parties are in the midst of scheduling a meeting on site with their consultants to discuss solutions and compromise. They also request the setting of a Settlement Conference before the assigned Magistrate Judge, and represent that they will have this matter ready for such conference within 45 days.

Wherefore, the parties request that the court extend the scheduling order dates as follows:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Deadlines and Dates ¦Current ¦Proposed ¦ +-----------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------¦ ¦Expert Disclosures With Reports ¦July 16, 2012 ¦Oct. 15, 2012 ¦ +-----------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------¦ ¦Completion of Discovery and Hear ¦Sept. 3, 2012 ¦January 7, 2013 ¦ ¦Discovery Motions ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------¦ ¦File all motions except ¦Dec. 10, 2012 ¦April 9, 2013 ¦ ¦continuances and TROs ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------¦ ¦File Separate Pretrial Conf. ¦February 2, ¦Plaintiff: June 10, 2013 ¦ ¦Statements ¦2013 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Defendant: June 17, 2013 ¦ +-----------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------¦ ¦Final Pretrial Conference ¦Feb. 19, 2 ¦June 24, 2013 2:00 PM ¦ ¦ ¦013, 2 PM ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------¦ ¦Jury Trial (5 Days) ¦April 23, ¦Aug. 20, 2013, 9:00 AM ¦ ¦ ¦2013, 9 AM ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

SO STIPULATED.

THIMESCH LAW OFFICES

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH

Signature Authorized

Attorneys for Plaintiff

HOLLYNN D'LIL

CHARLES L. POST, ESQ.

weintraub genshlea chediak

tobin & tobin

Signature Authorized

Attorneys for Defendants

RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC.

EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney

KATHLEEN T. ROGAN, Sr. Deputy

Signature Authorized

Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. Counsel are also required to adhere to Local Rule 270(b) regarding the referral of the settlement conference to the assigned magistrate judge in this action.

_________________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

D'Lil v. Riverboat Delta King, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2012
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-02230-WBS-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)
Case details for

D'Lil v. Riverboat Delta King, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HOLLYNN D'LIL, Plaintiff, v. RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC.; CITY OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 11, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-02230-WBS-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)