The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE, P.C. Maxwell M. Blecher (State Bar No. 26202) firstname.lastname@example.org Donald R. Pepperman (State Bar No. 109809) email@example.com Majed Dakak (State Bar No. 271875) firstname.lastname@example.org 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 622-4222 Fax: (213) 622-1656 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS and CONSENTERS (Appearances for Additional Counsel on Next Page)
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER Judge: Barbara A. McAuliffe Courtroom: 8
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) email@example.com 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 HYUN LEGAL, APC Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) firstname.lastname@example.org 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554
Whereas, on January 16, 2013, plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action; Whereas, on February 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint in this action; Whereas, on March 11, 2013, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss") in this action;
Whereas, by order dated April 3, 2013, this Court continued the mandatory scheduling conference previously set for May 1, 2013 to June 13, 2013, so that the mandatory scheduling conference could be held after this Court has issued an order on defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
Whereas, by order dated April 12, 2013, the Honorable Judge Ishii granted plaintiffs' ex parte request to file a sur-reply in relation to defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and allowed defendants until April 19, 2013 to respond to plaintiffs' sur-reply.
Whereas, in the same order dated April 12, 2013, the Honorable Judge Ishii in granting plaintiffs' ex parte request to file a sur-reply stated that because of the weight of the Court's docket, no decision on the Motion to Dismiss should be expected for several weeks.
Whereas, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now requires the parties to confer over a proposed discovery plan by May 24, 2013, submit a discovery plan 14 days afterwards, and make initial disclosures by June 7, 2013;
Whereas, defendant believes that the Court's ruling on defendant's motion could affect the number and scope of relevant issues in dispute, the scope of discovery, and affect the scheduling of dispositive motions, prospects for settlement and trial procedures of this action;
Whereas, it is plaintiffs' position that they have adequately pled their claims such that they believe that defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied;
Whereas, the parties, having met and conferred, nevertheless agree that continuing the mandatory scheduling conference, and related deadlines, until after this Court has issued an order on defendant's Motion to Dismiss will conserve the resources of the court and the parties;
Accordingly, the parties to this action, through their respective attorneys of record, hereby STIPULATE and JOINTLY REQUEST that the Court continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, and related deadlines to meet and confer and submit a Joint Scheduling Report and discovery plan, and deadline to provide initial disclosures, until a date after this Court has issued an order on defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
In consideration of the parties' Stipulation and Joint Request to Continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, and related deadlines, and good cause having been shown, it is ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, currently set for June 13, 2013, is CONTINUED to September 16, ...