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.

Bedrock Financial, Inc., A California v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 20, 2011

BEDROCK FINANCIAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF,
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-01055-OWW-MJS Document 32 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 3 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194 Assistant U. S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2760 Attorneys for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PARTIES' STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING ONE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO COINCIDE WITH THE OTHER, AND EXTENDING RESPONSE DATE

The parties to these two actions, related by Order filed December 28, 2010, have preliminarily met and conferred in compliance with the Orders Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conferences filed in the actions on June 11 and December 14, 2010. See certain parties' Joint Scheduling Report filed October 7, 2010. The then parties (not including then-suspended corporation Bedrock Financial, Inc.) timely exchanged initial disclosures. The parties believe that these actions should be coordinated with one another. Currently, the United States' response to the complaint in number 1:10-cv-2326 is not yet due, and the United States wishes to formulate its factual contentions for the required joint scheduling report after it has responded to the complaint.

Also, the parties currently are discussing settlement of at least two of the claims in these actions. They believe that their settlement efforts and judicial economy would be served by conducting both Scheduling Conferences at the Scheduling Conference time in number 1:10-cv-2326. (There was one past 99-day continuance of the Scheduling Conference in number 1:10-cv-1055, by minute order filed October 7, 2010.) To promote these settlement efforts, the parties also agree that the United States' time to respond to the complaint in number 1:10-cv-2326 be extended for an initial 30 days.

The parties therefore stipulate, subject to Court's approval, as follows:

1. That the United States accepted service of the summons and complaint in number 1:10-cv-2326 on December 17, 2010, making its response to the complaint due February 15, 2011.

2. That the time for the United States to respond to the complaint in number 1:10-cv-2326, which has not been extended before this, be EXTENDED for an initial period of 30 days, from February 15 until March 17, 2011.

3. That the Scheduling Conference in number 1:10-cv-1055, currently set before Judge Wanger by Minute Order filed October 7, 2010, for 8:15 AM on January 21, 2011, be CONTINUED to coincide with the Scheduling Conference in number 1:10-cv-2326, set before Judge Wanger by Order filed December 14, 2010, that is, until 8:15 AM on June 9, 2011.

4. That the time for filing and emailing of the Joint Scheduling Report accordingly be June 2, 2011.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110120

© 1992-2011 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.