Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Greenmarc, LLC v. Iffla

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 24, 2013

GREENMARC, LLC, et al. Plaintiffs,
JOSEPH B. IFFLA, ET AL., et al.; Defendants.

THOMAS M. HARRELSON (CA Bar No. 114346), HARRELSON & ASSOCIATES, Burlingame, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Joseph B. Iffla, Performex Machining Co., & Performex Machining, Inc., BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP, Joshua A. Bloom, Attorney for Defendant, CARL R. HEINEMAN, individually, PIERCE & SHEARER LLP, Stacy Y. North, Attorney for Defendants, HOFFMAN METAL PRODUCTS, INC., and HARRY W. HOFFMAN, individually and as an, officer, director and owner of HOFFMAN, METAL PRODUCTS.



WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

The undersigned parties ("Parties"), by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. The Parties submit this proposed Stipulation in lieu of an additional Joint Case Management Statement as required by the Reassignment Order and Order Requiring Submission of Case Management Statement;

2. The Parties, in addition to their meet and confer obligations, have engaged in informal settlement discussions and document exchange. A technical report documenting assessment of environmental conditions and remedy alternatives with regard to the subject property at 1007 and 1011 Bransten Road in San Carlos, California has been circulated by Plaintiff and has provided the foundation for further settlement discussions, cost allocation, and formulation of a case discovery plan. In addition, the Parties have agreed to an early neutral evaluation through the District Court's ADR program and are awaiting the selection of an evaluator that has not conflicts with any of the Parties hereto. As reported previously in the last Stipulation, the Parties are in the process of soliciting communication with the San Mateo County Health Department in which Plaintiff has been voluntarily participating in monitoring activities to determine whether the County will require further remediation and if so, in what form it may take. Plaintiff has contacted Mr. Marc Mullaney of the San Mateo County Health Department and was told that this file is on his list but he had ten (10) other files/projects ahead of ours which will cause delay. Thus, the Parties are waiting on Mr. Mullaney's availability in order to meet and confer and this is a necessary element in furthering settlement opportunities for the collective Parties hereto.

The Parties are actively continuing to evaluate and discuss their settlement options and in the interest of judicial economy, the Parties agree that continuance of various case deadlines are in the interests of the Parties and the Court. The Parties believe that such considerations are more properly made prior to an initial case management conference ("CMC").

3. Accordingly, the Parties agree to the following extensions of upcoming Court deadlines:

A. A continuance of the CMC currently scheduled before The Honorable William H. Orrick on October 29, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. to mid-January 2014 to early February 2014 or as the Court's docket may permit. This extension considers the vacation schedules of all counsel;

B The time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint (ECF No.1) shall be further extended from the current agreed upon date of September 25, 2013 to January 6, 2014;

C. The Parties have previously submitted and filed the Rule 26(f) Report, have completed their initial disclosures, and filed their initial Case Management Statement. The Parties agree to provide a joint supplemental Rule 26(f) Report and a supplemental joint Case Management Report after the Parties have continued their settlement discussions and ADR/ENE session and all prior to the upcoming to be scheduled CMC before Judge Orrick.

D. The Parties agree to extend the ENE deadline for completion to the week of January 18, 2014. The last proposed ENE neutral, Jane Pandell, Esq. was objected to by Defendant Iffla due to a conflict arising out of a prior employment relationship between Ms. Pandell's Firm and counsel for Mr. Iffla. A new ENE neutral has not yet been assigned.

4. The terms of the Case Management Conference Order filed February 28, 2013 (ECF No. 10), the Stipulation filed on March 27, 2013 (ECF No. 12), the Stipulation filed on May 6, 2013 (ECF No. 27), and the Stipulation filed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.