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.

Lopez v. Lassen Dairy Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- FRESNO DIVISION


June 23, 2010

JOSE A. LOPEZ, JUAN CARLOS APOLINAR, JUAN JOSE ESTRADA SOTA, JUAN JOSE CERVANTES, ISMAEL CUEVAS, REYNAR MENDOZA, AND JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LASSEN DAIRY INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS ) "MERITAGE DAIRY"); TULE RIVER FARMS INC.; TULE RIVER RANCH, INC.; BONANZA FARMS; AND WILLIAM VANDER POEL, SR., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND THE SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs JOSE A. LOPEZ, JUAN CARLOS APOLINAR, JUAN JOSE ESTRADA SOTA, JUAN JOSE CERVANTES, ISMAEL CUEVAS, REYNAR MENDOZA, AND JESUS RODRIQUEZ ("Plaintiffs"), by and through their counsel of record, Stan Mallison, Esq., of Mallison & Martinez; and Defendants, LASSEN DAIRY INC. (doing business as "Meritage Dairy"); TULE RIVER FARMS INC; TULE RIVER RANCH, INC; BONANZA FARMS; and WILLIAM VANDER POEL, SR., (sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, Gary N. Lento, Esq. and/or Olga A.

Balderama, Esq., of Baker Manock & Jensen, PC., do hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2010, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for Plaintiffs' (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, and (2) Motion to Compel

Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents;

WHEREAS, Judge Austin required the parties to spend the entire day meeting and conferring, in person, in an attempt to resolve the discovery disputes referenced above, and return to Court at 3:00 p.m. to inform him of the status of the discussions;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants spent the majority of June 18, 2010 meeting and conferring on the discovery issue referenced above;

WHEREAS, counsel for both parties returned to Court at 3:00 p.m. on June 18, 2010, and informed Judge Austin that the parties have tentatively resolved the discovery disputes referenced above;

WHEREAS, both parties informed Judge Austin that it will take about a week for both parties to finalize the tentative agreement;

WHEREAS, based on the representations of parties' counsel, Judge Austin continued the hearing on both Motions to Compel to Friday, June 25, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.;

WHEREAS, Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Second Scheduling Order dated February 4, 2010, Doc. No. 56, the Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled to be heard by the Honorable Lawrence O'Neill, on August 12, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Second Scheduling Order dated February 4, 2010, Doc. No. 56, Plaintiffs' are required to file their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than June 25, 2010, and Defendants are required to file their Reply no later 24 than July 23, 2010;

WHEREAS, as a result of the time necessary to finalize the tentative agreement resolving the discovery disputes referenced above, both parties' counsel asked Judge Austin to continue the dates by which they are to file the Opposition and Reply concerning the Motion for Summary Judgment by just one week;

WHEREAS, Judge Austin informed counsel that he cannot make changes to the schedule for the Motion for Summary Judgment because that issue will be heard by Judge O'Neill; and

WHEREAS, Judge Austin suggested that the parties submit a proposed Stipulation & Order to Judge O'Neill requesting that the Second Scheduling Order be amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their counsel, do hereby

STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows:

1. That the Second Scheduling Order dated February 4, 2010, Doc. No. 56, be amended to allow Plaintiffs up to and including July 2, 2010 to file their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and to allow Defendants up to and including July 30, 2010 to file their Reply.

2. That all other aspects of the Second Scheduling Order dated February 4, 2010, Doc. No. 56, remain in full force and effect, including, but not limited to, the hearing date 14 for the Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

1. That the Second Scheduling Order dated February 4, 2010, Doc. No. 56, be amended to allow Plaintiffs up to and including July 2, 2010 to file their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and to allow Defendants up to and including July 30, 2010 to file their Reply.

2. That all other aspects of the Second Scheduling Order dated February 4, 2010, Doc. No. 56, remain in full force and effect, including, but not limited to, the hearing date for the Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100623

© 1992-2010 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.