Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Michael Owens v. Stephen B. Chasko
April 19, 2011
MICHAEL OWENS, PLAINTIFF,
STEPHEN B. CHASKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
James D. Burnside III #75977 Jared C. Marshall #272065 DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC. 8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor P.O. Box 28902 Fresno, California 93729-8902 Tel: (559) 432-4500 Fax: (559) 432-4590 5 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Attorneys for Defendant STEPHEN B. CHASKO
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON Trial Date: None
The parties request the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be postponed from April 28, 2011 to June 27, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. for the following reasons.
This action was originally filed on January 12, 2011 in the Tulare County Superior Court. Plaintiff, a California resident, sued Defendant, a Pennsylvania resident, for 23 abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant removed the case 24 to this Court on February 28, 2011 based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
On March 4, 2011 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under FRCP
the ground the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
Defendant. On March 22, 2011,
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint setting forth new allegations on the jurisdictional 28 issue.
On April 8, 2011 Defendant filed a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion asserting each
of the First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
The hearing on the motion was 3 set for May 23, 2011 (a Stipulation
and Order to continue said hearing to Tuesday, May 31, 4
2011 is being submitted concurrently herewith). 5
The Mandatory Scheduling Conference on calendar for April 28, 2011 was
by Order filed on February 28, 2011 and is the initial setting for
said conference. Participation 7 in a Mandatory Scheduling Conference
on April 28, 2011 would be premature because until 8 such time as the
Court rules on the 12(b)(6) motion directed at the First Amended
Complaint, 9 the parties will lack the information and thus the
ability to comply with the order of the Court 10 in a number of
respects as to the contents of the Joint Scheduling Report, such as
the factual 11 and legal contentions set forth in the pleadings, any
proposed amendment to the pleadings with 12 corresponding deadline, a
detailed summary of the uncontested and contested facts, a summary 13
of both the disputed and undisputed legal issues, and a complete and
detailed discovery plan.
The parties request the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be continued to June 27, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. again in Courtroom 10 before the U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin.
Upon reviewing the Stipulation of counsel for the parties and
having been demonstrated, 4
IT IS ORDERED the Mandatory Scheduling Conference is continued to June 27, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before U.S. ...
Buy This Entire Record For