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.

Joseph Hardesty, et al. v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 21, 2011

JOSEPH HARDESTY, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller

Tony West Assistant Attorney General Civil Division C. Salvatore D'Alessio, Jr. Acting Director, Torts Branch Constitutional and Specialized Torts Staff Leah Brownlee Taylor Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice, Civil Division P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: 202-616-4325 Fax: 202-616-4314 Attorneys for Defendant Zachary Simmons

Stipulation for a Continuance of the Scheduling Conference

Plaintiffs Joseph Hardesty and Yvette Hardesty and Defendant Zachary Simmons, by and through their attorneys of record, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 83 and Local Rules 143 and 144, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. WHEREAS on March 7, 2011, this Court issued an order setting a scheduling conference for July 20, 2011. See Docket #33.

2. WHEREAS under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (f)(1), all the parties must meet and confer within twenty one ( 21) days prior to the scheduling conference to discuss a proposed discovery plan. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (f)(1). In addition, all the parties must jointly submit a proposed discovery plan outlining their "views and proposals" within fourteen (14) days after the met and confer conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (f)(3). Therefore, a meet and confer must take place on or before June 29, 2011. A joint report must be submitted by the parties on or before July 13th, 2011.

3. WHEREAS the Court's docket reflects that all of the defendants have filed dispositive motions and the plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend their complaint. See Docket ##23, 26, 28, 37-3, 39, 42. The Court has not had an opportunity to resolve the outstanding motions. Therefore, it is unclear at this stage of the proceedings, what claims and parties will be involved in litigation and what discovery will take place.

4. WHEREAS in the interests of judicial economy and preserving valuable time and resources, a scheduling conference should be continued until the Court has had an opportunity to resolve the outstanding motions, as the Court's rulings will undoubtedly affect the nature and scope of the current litigation. The defendants for the County of Sacramento and its defendant employees and the State of California defendants also agree to a continuance of the scheduling conference;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT, subject to the approval of the Court, the July 20, 2011scheduling conference is continued until the Court has had an opportunity to resolve the referenced outstanding motions.

IT IS SO STIPULATED .

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110621

© 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.