Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01243-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL LOPES and MARIANA LOPES,

dba LOPES DAIRY; RAYMOND LOPES;

JOSEPH LOPES and MICHAEL LOPES,

individually and dba WESTSIDE

HOLSTEIN; ALVARO MACHADO and

TONY ESTEVAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GEORGE VIEIRA; MARY VIEIRA;

CALIFORNIA MILK MARKET, a

California Corporation; VALLEY

GOLD, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; GENSKE,

MULDER & COMPANY, a California

Limited Liability Partnership;

ANTHONY CARY; DOWNEY BRAND LLP,

a California Limited Liability

Partnership; CENTRAL VALLEY

DAIRYMEN, INC., a California

Food and Agricultural Nonprofit

Cooperative Association; and

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1243 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: C

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: C

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: C

Settlement Conference Date:

C

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: C

Trial Date: C

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

February 5, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP by Douglas A.

Case 1:06-cv-01243-JLT Document 15 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Applegate, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Segal & Kirby by James R. Kirby II, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendant Downey Brand LLP. 

Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney by Vincent O’Gara, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendant Genske, Mulder & Company.

III. Status of Case. 

1. The parties have noted that Defendants George Vieira,

et al., and Anthony Cary are in the process of being served. It

is anticipated that it may be necessary to serve Mr. Cary by

publication.

2. The parties agree that it is not the best use of their

resources to proceed with a scheduling conference before all

parties have appeared. Moreover, there are pending 12(b)(6)

motions that will be before the court for resolution. 

3. Upon agreement of all appearing parties;

IT IS ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference is continued

for 60 days or upon ruling on the pending 12(b)(6) motions,

whichever later occurs. The Courtroom Deputy shall reschedule

the Scheduling Conference after contacting the parties for

available dates, once rulings on the 12(b)(6) motions are

issued.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01243-JLT Document 15 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2