Vasquez v. R & L Carriers, Inc.
Filing
8
STIPULATION and ORDER 7 to extend deadlines signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 5/26/2010. Defendant R & L Carrier shall have up through 7/14/2010 to move or plead in response to plaintiff's Complaint. Parties shall have until and through 8/3/2010 prepare and file Joint Status Report. (Marciel, M)
<![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
Susan E. Kirkgaard, SBN 134915 Krista J. Dunzweiler, SBN 227384 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 1415 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.930.2500 Facsimile: 916.930.2501 E-Mail: susan.kirkgaard@bullivant.com krista.dunzweiler@bullivant.com Attorneys for Defendant R+L Carriers, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION MARLENA VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. R+L CARRIERS, INC. et al., Defendants. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR R+L CARRIERS, INC.'S TO MOVE OR PLEAD IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT AND FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE THEIR JOINT STATUS REPORT Case No.: 2:10-CV-01125-FCD-GGH
Plaintiff MARLENA VASQUEZ ("Vasquez")and Defendant R+L CARRIERS, INC. ("R+L"), through their attorneys of record hereby request that the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 144, extend the deadline for R+L to move or plead in response to the Complaint by thirty (30) days, until July 14, 2010. Furthermore, the parties request that the Court extend the deadline for filing the Joint Status Report to August 3, 2010 set forth in the Order Requiring Joint Status Report. The parties further stipulate as follows: 1. Vasquez filed her Complaint for Failure to Grant Rest Breaks and/or Meal
Periods During Employment; Breach of Government Code Section 12940, et seq: Discrimination on the basis of disability; Breach of Government Code Section 12940, et seq: Failure to accommodate and/or engage in an interactive process; Breach of Government Code Section 12945.1, et seq: Refusal to grant and/or discrimination for taking a medical leave of
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
absence, in the Yolo County Superior Court on or about March 11, 2010. Vasquez served the complaint on R+L on or about April 27, 2010. 2. R+L filed a Notice of Removal with the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on or about May 5, 2010. 3. Pursuant to Local Rule 144, the parties agreed to extend R+L's deadline to move
or plead in response to the Complaint by less than twenty eight (28) days, until June 14, 2010, and filed said stipulation with the Court on or about May 5, 2010. 4. The parties in this matter now jointly seek from this Court an Order extending
Defendant R+L's deadline to move or plead in response to the Complaint by 30 days from the deadline agreed to by the parties. The parties request that the Court extend the deadline until July 14, 2010. 5. Following R+L's removal of this matter to this Court, the parties began to
engage in discussions aimed at resolving this case informally. During those discussions, the parties agreed that an early mediation would be productive. 6. The parties are working diligently to schedule a private mediation regarding this
case, and other similar litigation, to take place in June 2010. The requested extension would allow that mediation to occur and potentially resolve the matter in its entirety without further expense of judicial resources. 7. Furthermore, the mediation will likely include at least one other unrelated case in
which Plaintiff's counsel also represents the party in that separate litigation. Because the mediation will encompass two separate plaintiffs in two separate actions, additional time for scheduling and coordination is required. 8. The parties believe that the thirty (30) day extension of R+L's deadline to move
or plead in response to the complaint will provide the parties will sufficient time to fully explore the possibility of early resolution of the claims at issue in this case. 9. On or about May 7, 2010, the Court issued an Order Requiring Joint Status
Report. That order requires that the parties submit a Joint Status Report within sixty (60) days of the date of service, or from the date of removal. As noted above, the case was removed on 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
May 5, 2010; thus the deadline for filing the Joint Status Report is currently July 4, 2010. The parties do not want to detract from the efforts to resolve the matter informally through mediation, and believe that it is beneficial to the resolution process to delay the preparation and filing of the Joint Status Report until after R+L has responded to Plaintiff's Complaint. Thus, the parties request that the deadline for filing the Joint Status Report also be moved by thirty (30) days until August 3, 2010. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Approved: DATED: May 26, 2010 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
By
Susan E. Kirkgaard Krista J. Dunzweiler
Attorneys for Defendant R + L Carriers, Inc. DATED: May 25, 2010 HENK LEONARD
By:_/s/ ROBERT P. HENK, as authorized on 5/25/2010 Robert P. Henk Sheri L. Leonard Attorneys for Plaintiff Marlena Vasquez ORDER Plaintiff RICHARD SPRINGER's and Defendant R+L CARRIERS, INC.'s stipulation and request for an order extending the deadline for R+L CARRIERS, INC. to move or plead in response to Plaintiff's Complaint came before the Court on this day. Upon a showing of good cause as to why the deadline should be moved, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
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
1.
The deadline for R+L CARRIERS, INC. to move or plead in response to
Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended up through July 14, 2010. 2. The deadline for the parties to prepare and file the Joint Status Report shall be
extended up through August 3, 2010. Dated: May 26, 2010
_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
]]>
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?
