Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Caballero
Filing
86
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/28/2010 ORDERING the hearing on the Tribe's motion to compel further responses to document requests, set for hearing on June 4, 2010, before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, is continued to September 3, 2010; The Tribe's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, set for hearing on July 7, 2010, before the Honorable John A. Mendez is taken off calendar; The Tribe may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than August 30 , 2010; Mr. Caballeros answer to the Tribes Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than September 30, 2010. Discovery due by 11/29/2010; Dispositive Motions filed by 12/29/2010; Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/4/2011 at 02:00 PM and Trial set for 4/25/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 525 MARKET STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2708 (415) 882-5000
PAULA M. YOST (State Bar No. 156843) pyost@sonnenschein.com IAN R. BARKER (State Bar No. 240223) ibarker@sonnenschein.com SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 525 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2708 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Facsimile: (415) 882-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS, Plaintiff, v. CESAR CABALLERO, Defendant. Plaintiff Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, a sovereign Indian tribe formally recognized by the United States, and defendant Cesar Caballero, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows, and respectfully request that the Court approve and give effect to their stipulation: WHEREAS, the Court issued its Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order on June 8, 2009, setting various deadlines for this action; WHEREAS, the parties have recently initiated discussions that they believe may lead to settlement of this action; WHEREAS, Mr. Caballero and the Tribe have agreed to negotiate in good faith to attempt to reach a settlement of this action; CASE NO. 2:08-CV-03133-JAM-DAD STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING THE ACTION (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-1No. 2:08-CV-03133-JAM-DAD
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING THE ACTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 525 MARKET STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2708 (415) 882-5000
WHEREAS, the parties believe that a three-month stay of this action, including continuance of a pending hearing regarding the Tribe's discovery requests, would facilitate settlement efforts; WHEREAS, the parties agree that a stay to facilitate settlement shall not constitute delay or waiver of, or in any way prejudice, the Tribe's motion to compel Mr. Caballero to produce documents; WHEREAS, the parties would like to make arrangements for the orderly resumption of the action, in case they are unable to agree to a negotiated settlement; WHEREAS, since filing its First Amended Complaint, the Tribe has discovered additional conduct by Caballero upon which it desires to seek relief in this action; WHEREAS, in the case that settlement efforts are unsuccessful, the parties agree that judicial economy supports resolving all disputes relating to their trademark claims and associated rights in this single action; WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid unnecessary motion practice; and WHEREAS, if the parties are unable to settle the action, the parties do not believe that the Tribe's proposed Second Amended Complaint would unduly delay the resolution of the action; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED among the parties that: 1. The hearing on the Tribe's motion to compel further responses to document requests, set for hearing on June 4, 2010, before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, is continued to September 3, 2010, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court; 2. The Tribe's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, set for hearing on July 7, 2010, before the Honorable John A. Mendez is taken off calendar; 3. The Tribe may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than August 30, 2010; 4. Mr. Caballero's answer to the Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than September 30, 2010; 5. The deadlines previously set by the Court in this action are modified as follows:
-2No. 2:08-CV-03133-JAM-DAD STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING THE ACTION
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 525 MARKET STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2708 (415) 882-5000
Event Last Day To Complete Discovery
Previous Date August 27, 2010 (per order filed April 19, 2010) September 22, 2010 October 20, 2010, 9:00 a.m.
New Date November 29, 2010
Last Day To File Dispositive Motions Hearing on Dispositive Motions
December 22, 2010 January 19, 2011, 9:00 a.m. (or as convenient for the Court) February 23, 2011 March 4, 2011, 3:00 p.m. (or as convenient for the Court) April 25, 2011, 9:00 a.m. (or as convenient for the Court)
Last Day To File Joint Pretrial Statement Final Pretrial Conference
November 24, 2010 December 3, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Trial Date
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: May 27, 2010 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
January 24, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
By
/s/ Ian R. Barker IAN R. BARKER
Attorneys for Plaintiff SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
-3No. 2:08-CV-03133-JAM-DAD
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING THE ACTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 525 MARKET STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2708 (415) 882-5000
Dated: May 27, 2010
BRAD CLARK ATTORNEY AT LAW
By
/s/ Brad Clark BRAD CLARK
Attorney for Defendant CESAR CABALLERO
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4No. 2:08-CV-03133-JAM-DAD STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING THE ACTION
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 525 MARKET STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2708 (415) 882-5000
ORDER (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT) The parties having stipulated thereto and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The hearing on the Tribe's motion to compel further responses to document requests, set for hearing on June 4, 2010, before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, is continued to September 3, 2010. 2. The Tribe's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, set for hearing on July 7, 2010, before the Honorable John A. Mendez is taken off calendar. 3. The Tribe may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than August 30, 2010. 4. Mr. Caballero's answer to the Tribe's Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than September 30, 2010. 5. The deadlines previously set by the Court in this action are modified as follows: Event Last Day To Complete Discovery Previous Date August 27, 2010 (per order filed April 19, 2010) September 22, 2010 October 20, 2010, 9:00 a.m. November 24, 2010 December 3, 2010, 3:00 p.m. January 24, 2011, 9:00 a.m. New Date November 29, 2010
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Last Day To File Dispositive Motions Hearing on Dispositive Motions Last Day To File Joint Pretrial Statement Final Pretrial Conference Trial Date
December 29, 2010 January 26, 2011, 9:30 a.m. February 23, 2011 March 4, 2011, 2:00 p.m. April 25, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
DATED: May 28, 2010
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________ Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
-5No. 2:08-CV-03133-JAM-DAD
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING THE ACTION
]]>
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?
