Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02548-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Lenard
Plaintiff
Sherwin-Williams Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Case No. 2:13-CV-02548-KJM-AC

Stipulation to Delay Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Order

Lawrance A. Bohm, State Bar No. 208716

BOHN LAW GROUP 

4600 Northgate Blvd., Suite 210 

Sacramento, CA 95834 

Telephone: 916.927.5574 

Facsimile: 916.927.2046 

Erik Roper, State Bar No. 259756 

THE LAW OFFICE OF ERIK ROPER 

2121 Natomas Crossing Drive, Suite 200-117 

Sacramento, CA 95834 

Telephone: 916.281.8249 

Facsimile: 916.527.0118 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NATHAN LENARD 

KEVIN D. REESE, State Bar No. 172992 

kevin.reese@ogletreedeakins.com 

ZACHARY W. SHINE, State Bar No. 271522 

zachary.shine@ogletreedeakins.com 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 

One Market Plaza 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: 415.442.4810 

Facsimile: 415.442.4870 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATHAN LENARD, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, and 

DOES 1-100, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:13-CV-02548-KJM-AC 

STIPULATION TO DELAY RULING ON 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING 

CONCLUSION OF MEDIATION; ORDER

Action Filed: May 15, 2013 

Trial Date: November 28, 2016 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02548-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 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 Case No. 2:13-CV-02548-KJM-AC

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT EFFORTS AND STIPULATION TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; 

ORDER

Plaintiff Nathan Lenard (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company 

(“Defendant”) submit the following stipulation to delay the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment. 

On February 12, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) (Dkt. 

No. 39.) On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the MSJ. (Dkt. No. 40.) On March 

4, 2016, Defendant filed its Reply in support of its MSJ. (Dkt. No. 41.) 

On March 11, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant’s MSJ. Subsequently, the 

parties began discussing a potential pretrial resolution of this matter. The parties have scheduled a 

mediation for May 18, 2016. The parties will promptly notify the court following the mediation on 

May 18, 2016 as to whether the parties have reached a tentative or formal agreement to resolve the 

matter. 

In light of the parties’ scheduled mediation date, the parties respectfully request that the 

Court stay any decision on Sherwin Williams’ pending motion for summary judgment until after 

June 1, 2016. 

DATED: April 28, 2016 LAW OFFICE OF ERIK M. ROPER 

By: /s/ Erik M. Roper_________________________ 

Erik M. Roper 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

NATHAN LENARD

DATED: April 28, 2016 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, 

P.C. 

By: /s/ Kevin D. Reese (as authorized on 4/28/2016) 

Kevin D. Reese 

Zachary W. Shine 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY 

Case 2:13-cv-02548-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 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

2 Case No. 2:13-CV-02548-KJM-AC

STIPULATION TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER

ORDER 

Good cause appearing, the court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation to delay ruling on 

defendant’s motion for summary judgment until after June 1, 2016 to provide the parties adequate 

time to conclude a mediation of this matter (ECF No. 47). In the event the parties require 

additional time to resolve their settlement negotiations, they shall file a further stipulation with the 

court no later than seven (7) calendar days after the conclusion of their scheduled mediation 

explaining why good cause exists to further delay the court’s ruling on defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 2, 2016 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02548-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 3