Opinion
Case No. 1:11-cv-01217-LJO-DLB
09-14-2011
FRESNO TRUCK CENTER, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES WELFARE FUND; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants.
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO A Professional Corporation Howard A. Sagaser (SBN 72492) Attorneys for Plaintiff Fresno Truck Center, Inc. PHILIP M. MILLER (SBN 87877) ANNE M. BEVINGTON (SBN 111320) JULIE A. OSTIL (SBN 215202) SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION Attorneys for Defendant Automotive Industries Welfare Fund
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A Professional Corporation
Howard A. Sagaser (SBN 72492)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Fresno Truck Center, Inc.
PHILIP M. MILLER (SBN 87877)
ANNE M. BEVINGTON (SBN 111320)
JULIE A. OSTIL (SBN 215202)
SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION
Attorneys for Defendant
Automotive Industries Welfare Fund
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER THEREON
Courtroom: #9 (6th Floor)
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck
All parties hereby stipulate and request that the court enter an order continuing the currently calendared scheduling conference by approximately sixty (60) days. Good cause exists for the request:
1. Plaintiff filed its complaint in state court on June 16, 2011, and defendant was served with that complaint on June 28, 2011. On July 22, 2011, the case was removed by defendant to Federal District Court. On July 28, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to transfer venue.
2. On August 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Defendant, on August 4, 2011, notified the Court that its pending motion to dismiss was withdrawn.
3. On August 11, 2011 by Stipulation and Order, defendant's deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint was extended to October 12, 2011. However, at that time the parties did not request that the scheduling conference be continued, and so the scheduling conference is currently set to be held before the filing deadline for defendant's responsive pleading.
4. Since the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the parties have continued to confer through their counsel of record. They believe that there is a possibility of an early settlement in this matter and would like to exchange information in hopes of achieving an early resolution.
5. If the matter cannot be settled at an early stage, defendant anticipates filing a renewed motion to dismiss and/or transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
6. The parties do not wish to incur further fees in preparing or opposing dispositive motions at this time given the possibility of settlement, and do not wish to cause the Court to use its time in considering motions that may be obviated by an early settlement.
7. Further, the parties do not wish to incur fees in preparing for a scheduling conference prior to a judicial determination of whether the Eastern District of California or the Northern District of California is the correct venue for this matter. Such scheduling conference is premature in any case since no responsive pleading will have been filed by the date currently set for the case management statement.
8. Plaintiff and defendant are therefore in agreement that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be continued sixty (60) days with the Joint Scheduling Report to be electronically filed one (1) week prior to the Scheduling Conference, in order to allow time for briefing of and hearing on the motion to dismiss and motion to transfer in advance of deadlines to meet and confer, exchange disclosures, etc. The parties respectfully request that the Court so order.
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
By: ____
HOWARD A. SAGASER
Attorneys for Defendant AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRIES WELFARE FUND
SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION
By: ____
JULIE A. OSTIL
Attorneys for Defendant AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRIES WELFARE FUND
ORDER
Pursuant to stipulation, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference is continued to DECEMBER 1, 2011, at 9:00 am with the Joint Scheduling Report to be electronically filed in CM/ECF, one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE