Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00857/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00857-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

-1- 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

CASE NO.: 1:14−CV−00857−JAM—BAM 

1286325v.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

BEN PATRICK (SBN 244092) 

Ben.Patrick@WilsonElser.com 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, 

 EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 

525 Market Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105-2725 

Telephone: (415) 433-0990 

Facsimile: (415) 434-1370 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

APEX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:14−CV−00857−JAM—BAM

FURTHER STIPULATION AND 

PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE 

RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. (“MP Nexlevel”) and Defendant Apex 

Directional Drilling, LLC (“Apex”), through their attorneys of record, stipulate as follows: 

1. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order previously entered by the Court (docket 

entry 22), the parties are to conduct a Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference and provide the Court 

with a joint status report no later than sixty days after the Court’s ruling on Apex’s motion to 

dismiss (docket entry 18). 

2. On September 10, 2014, Apex withdrew its motion to dismiss (docket entry 26). 

Because there will be no Court ruling on the motion to dismiss, the parties have treated 

September 10, 2014 as the equivalent of a Court ruling, triggering the sixty-day deadline to 

provide the Court with a joint status report. That would make the report due on November 10, 

2014. 

3. On February 28, 2014, MP Nexlevel commenced an action in the United States 

Case 1:14-cv-00857-JAM-BAM Document 30 Filed 10/30/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

1286325v.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

District Court for the Eastern District of California, captioned MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. 

CVIN, LLC et al., case no. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-GSA (the “CVIN Litigation”). The CVIN 

Litigation is related to this case, and was identified as a related matter on MP Nexlevel’s civil 

cover sheet for this case (docket entry 1-3). 

4. On September 26, 2014, MP Nexlevel served Apex with a third-party complaint in 

the CVIN Litigation (CVIN Litigation docket entry 108). The issues and claims contained in MP 

Nexlevel’s third-party complaint against Apex in the CVIN Litigation are substantially the same 

as the issues and claims raised by MP Nexlevel’s complaint against Apex in this case. 

5. Apex contests the validity of the issues and claims contained in MP Nexlevel’s 

complaint against Apex in this case, as evidenced by its answer, affirmative defenses, and 

counterclaims served on October 8, 2014 (docket entry 27). Apex will contest the validity of the 

issues and claims contained in MP Nexlevel’s third-party complaint against Apex in the CVIN 

Litigation. Apex’s answer to the third party complaint is due on or before November 25, 2014. 

6. On October 20, 2014, all parties in the CVIN Litigation (including MP Nexlevel 

and Apex) participated in a Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference. The parties will also appear for a 

Mandatory Scheduling Conference before the CVIN Litigation court on November 12, 2014. 

7. Because the issues presented in the CVIN Litigation are substantially the same as 

the issues presented in this case, both MP Nexlevel and Apex believe that consolidation or 

coordination of these two cases is appropriate. MP Nexlevel and Apex intend to raise that issue 

during the November 12, 2014 initial scheduling conference before the CVIN Litigation court. 

MP Nexlevel and Apex will then promptly file the appropriate motion to achieve either 

consolidation or coordination of these two cases. 

8. Because these two cases present a classic scenario for consolidation or 

coordination, and because MP Nexlevel and Apex have participated in a Rule 26(f) Scheduling 

Conference in the CVIN Litigation, the parties believe it would be a waste of time and resources 

to conduct a further Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference, or an Initial Scheduling Conference 

before the Court, until the issue of consolidation or coordination has been resolved. 

9. Therefore, MP Nexlevel and Apex hereby stipulate, and request that the Court 

Case 1:14-cv-00857-JAM-BAM Document 30 Filed 10/30/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

1286325v.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

order, that the parties need not file a joint scheduling report in this case until thirty days after the 

resolution of the consolidation/coordination issue. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED 

Dated: October 29, 2014 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & 

 DICKER LLP

/s/ Ben Patrick 

Ben Patrick, Esq. (SBN 244092) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 

Signature authorized: October 29, 2014 TONKON TORP, LLP

/s/ David Rabbino 

David Rabbino, Esq. (SBN 181291) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

APEX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC 

Case 1:14-cv-00857-JAM-BAM Document 30 Filed 10/30/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO POSTPONE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

1286325v.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

ORDER 

 The foregoing Stipulation of the parties is hereby approved, and pursuant to the 

Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties need not file a joint scheduling report in 

this case until thirty days after the resolution of the consolidation/coordination issue. The parties 

shall promptly notify the Court when the consolidation/coordination issue has been resolved. 

 BY THE COURT: 

Dated: 10/29/2014 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ 

 Hon. John A. Mendez 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 1:14-cv-00857-JAM-BAM Document 30 Filed 10/30/14 Page 4 of 4