Simmons et al v. City of Chico et al
Filing
56
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/4/10: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 7/1/2010. Dispositive Motions filed by 9/22/2010. Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 12/3/2010 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. Jury Trial RESET for 1/24/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Kaminski, H)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
John D. Montague, CA State Bar No. 71994 MONTAGUE & VIGLIONE 1500 River Park Drive, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95815 Telephone: (916) 929-5018 Facsimile: (916) 929-8967 mcvlaw@aol.com Attorneys for Defendant Virginia L. Drake, individually and As Trustee of the Drake Revocable Trust
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELIZABETH JEAN SIMMONS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Edward Simmons; DARWIN H. SIMMONS and NINA R. SIMMONS, individually, and as Trustee of the Simmons Family Trust, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICO; COUNTY OF BUTTE COUNTY; BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; VIRGINIA DRAKE, individually, and as Trustee of the Drake Revocable Trust, Defendants. CASE NO. 2:07-CV-01129-JAM-GGH STIPULATION TO AMEND THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
Good cause exists to amend the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order in this action. As the parties have proceeded with discovery, it has become apparent that the volume of expert discovery that remains to be completed is greater than the parties originally estimated. The parties therefore request an extension of the scheduling order to allow for the efficient completion of expert discovery. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred, and request that the Court adopt the following schedule:
S
Simmons v. City of Chico, et al. STIPULATION TO trial version www.pdffactory.com PDF created with pdfFactory AMEND THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
Page 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S
Close of Expert Discovery: Dispositive Motions filed by: Dispositive Motions hearing: Joint PreTrial Statement filed by: Final PreTrial Conference: Trial:
July 1, 2010 September 22, 2010 October 20, 2010 @ 9:30 a.m. November 26, 2010 December 3, 2010 @ 3:00 p.m. January 24, 2011 @ 9:00 a.m.
We respectfully request that the Court issue a new Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order reflecting these new dates. SO STIPULATED.
March _3__ 2010
CARR, KENNEDY, PETERSON & FROST By: /s/ Randall C. Nelson___________________________ (as authorized on March 3, 2010) Randall C. Nelson (SBN 138298) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
March _3__ 2010
MONTAGUE & VIGLIONE By: /s/ John D. Montague ___________________________ John D. Montague (SBN 71994) (as authorized on March 3, 2010) Attorneys for Defendant Virginia Drake, Individually & as Trustee of the Drake Revocable Trust
March _3__ 2010
GOLDSBERRY, FREEMAN & GUZMAN By: /s/ Francis M. Goldsberry III ____________________ (as authorized on March 3, 2010) Francis M. Goldsberry III (SBN 178739) Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF CHICO
Simmons v. City of Chico, et al. STIPULATION TO trial version www.pdffactory.com PDF created with pdfFactory AMEND THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
March _3__ 2010
PORTER SCOTT By: /s/ Noah M. Bean ______________________________ (as authorized on March 3, 2010) Noah M. Bean (SBN 257657) Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF BUTTE
March _4__ 2010
SCHARFF, BRADY & VINDING By: /s/ Michael E Vinding ___________________________ (as authorized on March 4, 2010) Michael E. Vinding (SBN 178359) Attorneys for Defendant BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO.
IT IS SO ORDERED Date: 03/04/2010 /s/ John A. Mendez________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
S
Simmons v. City of Chico, et al. STIPULATION TO trial version www.pdffactory.com PDF created with pdfFactory AMEND THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
Page 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
