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.

General Security Services Corporation v. County of Fresno

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 9, 2013

GENERAL SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant.

KEVIN B. BRIGGS, County Counsel, MICHAEL R. LINDEN, Deputy County Counsel-State Bar No. 192485 FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL, Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO.

VAUGHN LEGAL GROUP Barak Vaughn, Attorney for Plaintiff.

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON.

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff GENERAL SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and defendant COUNTY OF FRESNO (hereinafter "Defendant") hereby present the following Stipulation to Modify the current Scheduling Order in the above-captioned action to continue the existing trial date.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2011, the Court issued its initial Scheduling Order. In said order, the trial was set for January 29, 2013.

WHEREAS, on October 14, 2011, the parties consented to have Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng be the judge for all purposes in this case.

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, the Court issued an order, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, to continue the existing trial date to April 1, 2013.

WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, counsel for parties tentatively agreed on behalf of their clients to engage in a settlement process. Under this process, the parties will first meet and confer to determine the extent of the existing controversy. Once this determination is made, it is the intention of the parties to engage in private mediation. Due to the large number of pieces of electronic monitoring equipment subject to Plaintiff's overall claim, the factual inquiry needed for the settlement process will be extensive. As such, the parties believe that the current trial date of April 1, 2013 leaves insufficient time for this process.

WHEREAS, on February 20, 2013, the Court issued an order, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, continuing the trial date to August 6, 2013;

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, counsel for the parties agreed that due to the large number of pieces of electronic monitoring equipment subject to Plaintiff's overall claim, the factual inquiry between the parties has taken longer than anticipated. As such, the parties still desiring to conduct a meaningful settlement process and mediation, believe that the current trial date of August 6, 2013 will leave insufficient time for the settlement process.

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, counsel for the parties conferred regarding a new trial date. Based on the time needed for the above-described settlement process to continue, and the existing schedules for counsel, it was agreed that a trial date in October or November 2013 would be proposed.

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, counsel for Plaintiff contacted Laurie Yu, the Courtroom Deputy for Judge Seng, concerning the parties' proposed stipulation and order. Ms. Yu represented that the parties could propose November 19, 2013, as the new trial date.

WHEREAS, on August 30, 2013, counsel for the parties conferred regarding proposed mediators and conferred regarding a new trial date. The parties have been diligently accumulating information regarding the underlying equipment and have created spreadsheets outlining their respective positions to make any settlement discussions and mediation more productive. Counsel for the parties continues to believe that this matter is ripe for mediation and have agreed upon two mediators.

WHEREAS, on August 30, 2013, counsel for the parties both understanding that more time is needed to provide for a meaningful mediation and settlement process, and due to the existing schedules of counsel, including Plaintiff's counsel schedule of trials on November 4, 2013, December 12, 2013, January 20, 2014, and January 24, 2014, it was agreed that a new trial date in February 2014 would be proposed.

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2013, counsel for the Plaintiff contacted Laurie Yu, the Courtroom Deputy for Judge Seng, concerning the parties' proposed stipulation and order. Ms. Yu represented that the parties could propose February 11, 2014, as the new trial date.

STIPULATION

Now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, through their respective attorneys of record that:

1. The existing trial date of November 19, 2013 will be vacated, and the case will be set for trial on February 11, 2014, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court in Fresno, California.

2. The Court will set a pre-trial conference on January 10, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court in Fresno, California.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, albeit only marginally, the parties Stipulation is accepted and approved and made the Order of the Court as provided below:

1. The existing trial date of November 19, 2013 will be vacated, and the case will be set for trial on February 11, 2014, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court in Fresno, California.

2. A pre-trial conference will convene January 10, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court in Fresno, California.

3. There shall be no further continuances in this case. The parties are Ordered to take appropriate steps to ensure mediation is convened and concluded prior to the pre-trial conference. If mediation produces a settlement, the settlement shall be consummated and the case dismissed before the pre-trial conference.

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.