The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Computerlaw Group LLP computerlaw.com Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Case No. 3:12-cv-06575-JSW
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2013, the Court issued an Order Setting Case Management Conference and Requiring Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Dkt. 17), setting the Case Management Conference for April 19, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 11;
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2013, the parties files a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing the Case Management Conference (Dkt. 53); on April 2, 2013, granted the Joint Stipulation 6 and Order Continuing the Case Management Conference (Dkt. 54) continuing the Case Management 7 Conference to June 14, 2013; 8
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Administrative Motion for Early Telephonic Case Management Conference (Dkt. 63); on May 2, 2013, the Court issued an order granting 10 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for Early Telephonic Case Management Conference (Dkt. 71) setting 11 the Case Management Conference to May 10, 2013; 12
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation requesting Mediation (Dkt. 69); on April 30, 2013, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Corley (Dkt. 70 and text entry); 14
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the parties conducted a call with Magistrate Judge Corley setting a settlement conference/mediation date of May 22, 2013; 16
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed that, to ensure that the Case Management Conference is as efficacious as possible, the parties request that the Court continue the May 10, 2013, Case Management Conference so that it occurs after the parties' mediation; specifically, the parties 18 request a new Case Management Conference date of May 24, 2013 following the scheduled mediation.
Dated: May 6, 2013 COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP 21 By: /s/Jack Russo 22 Jack Russo 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Dated: May 6, 2013 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 25 By: /s/ Steven G. Eckhaus 24 Steven G. Eckhaus, pro hac vice Stuart M. Richter Attorneys for Defendant VIRAL TOLAT Computerlaw Group LLP computerlaw.com
As required by General Order 45, I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) 4 within this e-filed document. 5
_____/s/ Jack Russo___________ _____ Jack Russo, Esq.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the parties' joint request is GRANTED and the May 10, 2013, Case Management Conference is ...