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.

Cartwright v. University of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 23, 2009

EDITH CARTWRIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, JR United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY AND FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Local Rule 83-143); ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-143, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this litigation, based upon good cause, that:

1) the current date for the filing of a motion for summary judgment is continued 120 days (from June 29, 2009 to October 29, 2009);

2) any motion for summary judgment shall be heard no later than November 30, 2009;

3) the discovery cut-off date is continued 120 days (from May 29, 2009 to September 29, 2009); 24

4) the expert discovery cut-off date is continued 120 days (from July 27, 2009 to November 27, 2009);

5) the current trial date of January 25, 2010 shall remain as scheduled.

Stipulation to Extend Time t1111 o Complete Discovery and File Dispositive Motions Good cause is predicated upon the fact that on April 16, 2009, plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). On April 24, 2009, Defendants filed an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's TAC. The 12(b)(6) seeks dismissal of a substantial amount of the TAC which if granted, will significantly impact the scope and volume of discovery necessary in the case.

The hearing on the 12(b)(6) is scheduled for June 11, 2009.

Discovery is currently scheduled to close on May 29, 2009. On this basis, the parties agree that a 120-day continuance of the above-identified dates is necessary in order to allow the Court to rule on the 12(b)(6), conduct appropriate discovery based upon only those claims then- pending and for Defendant(s) to file a motion for summary judgment that is not duplicative of the 12(b)(6) and addresses only those matters at-issue.

In the alternative, the parties are happy to participate in a formal case management conference or an informal telephone conference with the Court to discuss the current Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO STIPULATIED:

Dated: May 19, 2009

GORDON & REES, LLP Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: May 20, 2009

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL M. KARALASH Daniel M. Karalash Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090623

© 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.