From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Vision Value, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 5, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-01055 LJO MJS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-CV-01055 LJO MJS

10-05-2011

ANNALISA LEWIS, individually, and MICHELLE CATBAGAN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISION VALUE, LLC dba STANTON OPTICAL, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant.

Hugh A. McCabe, SBN 131828 David P. Hall, SBN 196891 NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK, MCFALL & TREXLER Lisa D. MacClugage, Pro Hac Vice Pending TRIPP SCOTT Attorneys for Defendant VISION VALUE LLC dba STANTON OPTICAL


Hugh A. McCabe, SBN 131828

David P. Hall, SBN 196891

NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK,

MCFALL & TREXLER

Lisa D. MacClugage, Pro Hac Vice Pending

TRIPP SCOTT

Attorneys for Defendant

VISION VALUE LLC dba STANTON OPTICAL

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT

VISION VALUE, LLC'S TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill

Ctrm: 4

Pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, Plaintiffs Annalisa Lewis, Michelle Catbagan and Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby submit this Stipulation to Extend the Time to Respond to the First Amended Complaint to November 4, 2011.

On September 23, 2011, the parties engaged in Rule 26 conference in preparation of this case and in anticipate of the scheduled status conference. The parties agreed a cost effective way to litigate this case was to engage in informal discovery and exchange of documents. This way the parties could prepare for alternative dispute resolution, either private mediation or through the Court. In light of this agreement, the parties further agree Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical's responsive pleading should be filed on or before November 4, 2011.

MICHAEL MALK, ESQ. APC

Michael Malk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ANNALISA LEWIS and

MICHELLE CATBAGAN

NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK,

MCFALL & TREXLER

A Professional Law Corporation

Hugh A. McCabe

David P. Hall

Attorneys for Defendant

VISION VALUE LLC dba STANTON

OPTICAL

ORDER

In light of the foregoing Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court approves the Stipulation. Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical shall file its responsive pleading on or before November 4, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Lewis v. Vision Value, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 5, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-01055 LJO MJS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011)
Case details for

Lewis v. Vision Value, LLC

Case Details

Full title:ANNALISA LEWIS, individually, and MICHELLE CATBAGAN, individually, and on…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 5, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 11-CV-01055 LJO MJS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011)