Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00743/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00743-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

Stipulation of the Parties to Extend Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for O.S.C.; Order

(2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB)

John M. Peebles, Cal. Bar No. 237582 

Conly J. Schulte, pro hac vice 

Tim Hennessy, Cal. Bar No. 233595 

Gregory M. Narvaez, Cal. Bar No. 278367 

PEEBLES KIDDER BERGIN & ROBINSON LLP 

2020 L Street, Suite 250 

Sacramento, CA 95811 

Telephone: (916) 441-2700 

Fax: (916) 441-2067 

Email: jpeebles@ndnlaw.com; 

cschulte@ndnlaw.com; thennessy@ndnlaw.com; 

gnarvaez@ndnlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AZUMA CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB 

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO 

EXTEND THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

O.S.C.; ORDER 

(L.R. 143, 144) 

Action filed: April 19, 2023 

Trial date: none 

Hearing date: Jan. 26, 2024 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 3, 15th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

The parties, through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff State of California ex rel. Rob Bonta, in his 

official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California (“State”) filed a motion for an 

order to show cause why Defendant Darren Rose should not be held in civil contempt, ECF No. 

50 (“Motion”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR Document 52 Filed 12/27/23 Page 1 of 4
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 

 

2 

Stipulation of the Parties to Extend Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for O.S.C.; Order

(2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB)

2. Based on Local Rule 230(c) and (d), the opposition to the Motion is currently due 

December 27, 2023, and the reply is due January 8, 2024. The hearing of the Motion is scheduled 

for January 26, 2024. 

3. The Christmas holiday limits Defendants’ counsel’s availability to prepare 

Defendants’ opposition brief, as members of Defendants’ legal team and staff will be travelling 

out of town on and around Christmas Day and the brief’s due date, December 27. 

4. In addition, the parties are engaged in negotiations for settlement of this case with 

the assistance of the Mediation Program of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and mediator Kay 

Suk. The parties have identified an exemplar agreement on which they can potentially base the 

settlement agreement in this case, and Defendants and their counsel are working to provide 

information requested by the State and to provide proposed terms of settlement in writing. The 

proposed extension of time would allow Defendants’ counsel to continue to devote available time 

to these negotiations. 

5. Neither party has previously sought or received an extension of time in connection 

with this Motion. 

6. The proposed extension of the briefing schedule will not impact the scheduled 

hearing date of the motion, which would remain set for January 26, 2024. 

7. Defendants contend that pursuant to Rules 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and paragraph 8(B) of the Court’s Standing Order, ECF No. 4-1, there is good cause to 

extend the briefing deadlines in this matter as set forth herein. 

8. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to the following briefing schedule: 

Opposition due: Friday, January 5, 2024 

Reply due: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 

9. The parties request the Court to enter an order approving the terms of this 

stipulation. 

Case 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR Document 52 Filed 12/27/23 Page 2 of 4
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 

 

3 

Stipulation of the Parties to Extend Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for O.S.C.; Order

(2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB)

Dated: December 20, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

PEEBLES KIDDER BERGIN AND 

ROBINSON LLP 

_/s/________________________________ 

Gregory M. Narvaez 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: December 20, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

Rob Bonta 

Attorney General of California 

James V. Hart 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

Peter F. Nascenzi 

Deputy Attorney General 

__/s/ (as authorized Dec. 20, 2023)____ 

David C. Goodwin 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR Document 52 Filed 12/27/23 Page 3 of 4
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 

 

4 

Stipulation of the Parties to Extend Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for O.S.C.; Order

(2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB)

ORDER 

Having read the foregoing stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above stipulation of the parties is approved. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the schedule for briefing of Plaintiff State of California’s 

Motion for an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 50, shall be as follows: 

Opposition due: Friday, January 5, 2024 

Reply due: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 

Dated: December 26, 2023. 

Case 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR Document 52 Filed 12/27/23 Page 4 of 4