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.

Scott Meyers and Lila Meyers On Their Own Behalf and As v. City of Fresno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 21, 2012

SCOTT MEYERS AND LILA MEYERS ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND AS INDIVIDUAL CLASS REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FRESNO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; KEITH BERGTHOLD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BRIAN LEONG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND DOES 1-200 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

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

LAW OFFICES OF DANIL MONTELEONE DANIL MONTELEONE (S.B.N. 140604) JEFFREY T. BELTON (S.B.N. 239443) KYLIE P. TORO (S.B.N. 265478) 8132 Tunney Ave. Reseda Ranch, CA 91335 Telephone: (818) 349-9666 Facsimile: (818) 998-4735 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS SCOTT MEYERS and LILA MEYERS

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND LIMIT POTENTIAL CLASS CLAIMANTS

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants are engaged in ongoing discussions regarding the case and are working together in an effort to resolve the case through settlement;

WHEREAS, the parties recognize and acknowledge that the current relief sought in the Action is equitable in nature (injunctions and declaratory relief) and are seeking to efficiently and cost effectively administer these claims along with claims pending in a separate state action;

WHEREAS, as part of ongoing settlement efforts, Plaintiffs and Defendants desire to adequately describe and limit the party participants, avoid potentially unnecessary law and motion, and coordinate discovery and negotiations with a pending state action and limit the costs and attorney's fees expended on this litigation;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants are in the process of negotiating the status of the class claims and considering class certification alternatives and limitations;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs had initially identified two potential classes in its Second Amended Complaint:

CLASS 1: All persons or entities in Fresno County who received a "Building Industry Bulletin" regarding their claimed construction defects from the City of Fresno. and CLASS 2: All persons or entities in Fresno County who own a building built within the last ten years with actual or potential claims against their DEVELOPERS for building code violations, including ongoing litigation, and who are subject to the policy stated in City of Fresno Resolution 2010-93. WHEREAS, as the remedies sought have been limited by the Court to equitable claims and as the parties seek to streamline further proceedings and enhance settlement discussions, the parties desire to eliminate CLASS 2.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants have further reached an agreement with respect to staying these proceedings to continue to engage in settlement discussions:

It is stipulated by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their respective counsel, that:

1. Discovery and law and motion activities shall be stayed for 180 days during the parties' settlement discussions;

2. The currently scheduled dates shall be vacated and rescheduled to a later date, following the 180 day stay:

 October 1, 2012 deadline to file and serve moving papers on class certification;  October 26, 2012 deadline to file and serve opposing papers on class certification;  November 16, 2012 deadline to file and serve reply papers on class certification; and  December 14, 2012 hearing on class certification.

3. Settlement discussions are currently ongoing and can be terminated at any time upon written notice by either party, in which case litigation activities will resume;

4. The parties may stipulate to extend the stay upon the making of a motion or upon the consent of the other party and the Court;

5. The parties shall submit joint declarations of progress to the court every 90 days;

6. The parties mutually stipulate and agree to dismiss CLASS 2 as described above and in the Second Amended Complaint from this Action.

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

ORDER

Having reviewed the stipulation, and for good cause being show, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

AS FOLLOWS:

1. The class certification deadlines are hereby vacated;

2. CLASS 2 is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

3. The Court SETS a Scheduling Conference for Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. A JOINT Scheduling Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in full compliance with the requirements set forth in the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, one

(1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and a copy shall be e-mailed, in WordPerfect or Word format, to bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

4. The parties shall file their first joint status report on December 20, 2012, indicating the status of the proceedings

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120921

© 1992-2012 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.