Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01902-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

Farella Braun & Martel LLP

Russ Building

235 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 954-4400

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

PRETRIAL SCHEDULE

Case No. C-04-01902-EDL

-1- 18912\799733.1

Richard Van Duzer (State Bar No. 136205)

Ruth Ann Castro (State Bar No. 209448)

Farella Braun & Martel LLP

Russ Building

235 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 954-4400

Facsimile: (415) 954-4480

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CALIFORNIA WINE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA WINE COMPANY, a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KNIGHTSBRIDGE FINE WINES, INC., a

Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 through

10,

Defendants.

Case No. C-04-01902-EDL

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE

WHEREAS, following the initial Case Management Conference held in this case on

March 29, 2005, the Court presented a pre-trial schedule providing that the last day to add new

parties was June 1, 2005;

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and have agreed to extend the time by which

Defendant Knightsbridge Fine Wines, Inc. must respond to outstanding discovery to June 2,

2005;

WHEREAS, defendant’s response to the outstanding discovery may impact Plaintiff

California Wine Company’s decision to add new parties;

THEREFORE, the parties, through their counsel, agree to modify the pre-trial schedule

with respect to the last day to add new parties, and extend that date to June 9, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-01902-EDL Document 40 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 2
Farella Braun & Martel LLP

Russ Building

235 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 954-4400

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

PRETRIAL SCHEDULE

Case No. C-04-01902-EDL

-2- 18912\799733.1

STIPULATED AND SO AGREED:

I attest that concurrence in the filing of the above Stipulation has been obtained from

counsel for Knightsbridge Wines, Inc.

DATED: May 31, 2005 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP

By: /s/

Ruth Ann Castro

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CALIFORNIA WINE COMPANY

DATED: May 31, 2005 GAW VANMALE SMITH MYERS &

MIROGLIO

By: /s/

Bruce A. Miroglio

Attorneys for Defendant

KNIGHTSBRIDGE FINE WINES, INC.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________

__________________________________

HON. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

June 2, 2005 U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:04-cv-01902-EDL Document 40 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2