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.

Ibiz, LLC v. City of Hayward

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 5, 2013

IBIZ, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HAYWARD, a California municipal corporation, Defendant.

John H. Weston (SBN: 46146), G. Randall Garrou (SBN: 74442), Jerome H. Mooney (SBN: 199542), Weston, Garrou & Mooney, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff IBIZ, LLC.

MICHAEL S. LAWSON (SBN: 048172), City Attorney, MICHAEL G. VIGILIA (SBN: 228353), Assistant City Attorney, CITY OF HAYWARD, Hayward, CA, Attorneys for Defendant.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE OF

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

COME NOW PLAINTIFF IBIZ AND DEFENDANT CITY AND STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

Per this Court's Minute Order (Doc. 43) issued on July 18, 2013, the Case Management Conference in this case is currently set for August 9, 2013 and the Case Management Conference Statement is due on August 2, 2013.

The parties mutually request that the Court continue the Case Management Conference to November 22, 2013, and that the filing date for the Case Management Conference Statement be continued to November 15, 2013. This request is made for the following reasons:

(1) The significant orders recently issued by the Court in both this case and the related case of Net Connection, Hayward, LLC v. City of Hayward, N.D.Cal. No. 12-cv-1212 SC, are being evaluated by the Hayward City Council. However the Hayward City Council is in its annual recess period and will not reconvene until September 17th. Until it does so, neither the City nor Plaintiff will be able to assess the future of this case. Accordingly, they would mutually prefer to postpone the Case Management Conference until they have a reasonable understanding of the City's considered response to the Court's Orders. Moreover, it is not clear whether the City Council will address this issue immediately at that first session or will be prepared to resolve its position on this issue at that time. Thereafter, Plaintiff would need time to assess any position taken by the City before determining how it wants to proceed in this litigation.
(2) Depending upon the outcome of its talks with the City, Plaintiff is not presently sure whether it will be necessary to amend its pleadings before proceeding with its prosecution of this case.

For each of these reasons, the parties believe that a continuance of the Case Management Conference until November 22, 2013, would be in the best interests of both sides and would be the most efficient and economical way to proceed. The parties have checked with this Court's clerk and confirmed that November 22, 2013, would be an available date for the continued hearing.

STIPULATION

Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties, by and through their counsel of record, HEREBY STIPULATE, that the Case Management Conference herein be continued to November 22, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. or what ever other time is convenient for the Court, and that the filing date for the Joint Case Management Conference Statement be continued to November 15, 2013.

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the Case Management Conference herein is hereby continued to November 22, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. and the filing date for the Joint Case Management Conference Statement is continued to November 15, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.