Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mohamed v. United States Dep't of Agriculture Food and Nutrition

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 12, 2009

NASSR MOHAMED, OWNER OF FAMILY FOOD MARKET; NASSR MOHAMMED AND NABEEL ABDULLA, OWNERS OF PARKVIEW MARKET, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND NUTRITION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER

Plaintiffs Nassr Mohamed and Nabeel Abdulla ("plaintiffs") and defendant United States of America ("defendant") (collectively "the parties") stipulate, by and through their undersigned counsel, to continuing this action's presently scheduled hearing on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration from Friday, April 17, 2009 to Friday, May 15, 2009.

The parties base their stipulation on good cause. First, counsel for the United States represents that he is transferring from his office's civil division to his office's criminal division on Monday, March 16, 2009, and the above continuance is necessary to enable successor counsel adequate time to analyze the case file (including plaintiffs' motion) so she can prepare and submit a proper response. Second, counsel for the United States believes that its receipt of a transcript of the February 20, 2009 hearing on the parties' cross-motions is necessary for its pending response. While this transcript was ordered on March 10, 2009, counsel for the United States understands it will not be ready for distribution for at least two weeks if not longer.

Counsel for plaintiffs stipulates to the above four-week continuance, but notes that Plaintiffs are opposed to any further delay not necessary to due process to the parties or fairness to counsel, and respectfully assert that this postponement and/or other delays not occasioned by requests of Plaintiffs should not be used to the prejudice of Plaintiffs in the context of case management.

Based on the foregoing, the parties specifically stipulate to the following scheduling modification, and request the court to endorse it by way of formal order:

HEARING SCHEDULE

Old Date New Date

Hearing on Plaintiffs' April 17, 2009 May 15, 2009 Motion for Reconsideration (9:30 a.m.) (9:30 a.m.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090312

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.