Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00610/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eustolia Camacho
Defendant
Jose M. Camacho
Defendant
El Mexicano Restaurant & Taqueria
Defendant
Rachel Lobato
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACHEL LOBATO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE M. CAMACHO d/b/a EL MEXICANO 

RESTAURANT & TAQUERIA; EUSTOLIA 

CAMACHO individually and d/ba EL 

MEXICANO RESTAURANT & TAQUERIA,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00610-SKO

ORDER EXTENDING THE TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT EUSTOLIA CAMACHO TO 

RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

The Complaint was filed on April 21, 2015, and served on Defendants Jose M. Camacho 

d/b/a El Mexicano Restaurant and Eustolia Camacho, individually and d/b/a El Mexicano 

Restaurant, on May 7, 2015, with an answer due on May 28, 2015. (See Docs. 1; 6; 7.) Plaintiff 

Rachel Lobato (“Plaintiff”) filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Jose M. Camacho 

on May 22, 2015, and on May 27, 2015, the docket was updated to reflect that Defendant Jose M. 

Camacho had been dismissed. (Docs. 8; 10.) On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a stipulation and 

proposed order for an extension of time for remaining Defendant Eustolia Camacho to respond to 

the Complaint. (Doc. 11.)

The Parties stipulated to an extension of time to accommodate a Certified Access 

Specialist report to be completed, which the Parties believe will lead to a conclusion of ongoing 

settlement negotiations without further Court intervention. (Doc. 11.) The Parties request that 

Case 1:15-cv-00610-MCE-SKO Document 12 Filed 06/30/15 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

Defendant Eustolia Camacho’s response to the Complaint be filed by no later than August 7, 2015. 

(Doc. 11.) 

The Parties further request that the Case Management Conference currently set for July 2, 

2015 (see Doc. 4) and the Scheduling Conference currently set for July 30, 2015 (see Doc. 3) be 

rest until after Defendant Eustolia Camacho’s response to the Complaint is filed, in order to 

“conserve the Court’s resources and time and not unnecessarily burden the Court with a matter 

that will likely be informally resolved” (Doc. 11). 

The Court agrees that judicial resources are best accommodated by continuing the 

Scheduling Conference to date after Defendant Eustolia Camacho’s response to the Complaint has 

been filed. However, as this case has been randomly selected for assignment to a United States 

District Judge in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District, the Case Management 

Conference currently set for July 2, 2015, must go forward as calendared to appropriately assign 

the case to a Sacramento District Judge if the Parties do not wish to consent to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. 

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulation and, good cause appearing, the Court 

ORDERS the following: 

1) Defendant Eustolia Camacho shall have up to and including August 7, 2015, to answer 

or otherwise respond to the Complaint;

2) The Case Management Conference shall remain on calendar for July 2, 2015, at 10:30 

a.m. in Courtroom 7; and

3) The Scheduling Conference currently set for July 30, 2015, at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 7 

will be continued to August 27, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. The Parties are directed to file their joint 

scheduling report no later than 7 days prior to the scheduling conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00610-MCE-SKO Document 12 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2