Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01150-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Acosta
Plaintiff
Fast N Esy #21
Defendant
Fast N Esy II, Inc.
Defendant
Vikram Vohra
Defendant
Vinay Vohra
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

Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683

Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035

MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.

332 North Second Street

San Jose, California 95112

Telephone (408) 298-2000

Facsimile (408) 298-6046

Email: service@moorelawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jose Acosta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ACOSTA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FAST N ESY II, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:16-cv-01150-LJO-SAB

STIPULATION FOR FURTHER 

CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

WHEREAS, a Mandatory Scheduling Conference in this action is currently set for 

December 14, 2016, pursuant to the Court’s Order dated October 18, 2016 (Dkt. 10);

WHEREAS, Defendants, Fast N Esy II, Inc. dba Fast N Esy #21, Vinay Vohra, and 

Vikram Vohra (“Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff Jose Acosta, “the Parties”), have filed 

a Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. 16; the “Second 

Motion”), which is set for hearing on December 29, 2016;

WHEREAS, the Parties are, concurrently with this stipulation, filing a stipulation to 

continue the hearing on the Second Motion to January 5, 2017;

WHEREAS, the Court previously continued the Scheduling Conference to the current 

date pursuant to the Parties stipulation, pending the resolution of Defendants’ First Motion to 

Case 1:16-cv-01150-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 11/30/16 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

Dismiss and/or to Strike and/or for a More Definite Statement, which was heard on November 

7, 2016 and which was denied (Dkt. 15);

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to conserve Court resources which might be expended 

unnecessarily if the Scheduling Conference were to be held prior to Defendants’ Second Motion 

in the event Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed or amended as a result of the Second Motion;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to a 

further continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for December 14, 

2016 to a date at the Court’s convenience on or after January 30, 2017, to allow time for 

Defendants’ motion to be heard and ruled upon by the Court.

Dated: November 30, 2016 MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/ Zachary M. Best 

Zachary M. Best

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Jose Acosta

Dated: November 30, 2016 THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C.

/s/ Thornton Davidson

 Thornton Davidson

Attorney for Defendants,

Fast N Esy II, Inc. dba Fast N Esy #21, 

Vinay Vohra, and Vikram Vohra

Case 1:16-cv-01150-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 11/30/16 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

ORDER

The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for 

December 13, 2016 is continued to January 24, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge 

Stanley A. Boone. The parties are to file their Joint Scheduling Report no later than seven days 

prior to the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01150-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 3