Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01694/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01694-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Merced
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

-1- 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

Jeffrey M. Soll, Esq., SBN 246462 

Email: jsoll@gmklaw.com GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN & KRIKES, LLP 

6300 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1400 

Woodland Hills, CA 91367 

Telephone: (818) 755-0444 

Facsimile: (818) 755-0434 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

CITY OF MERCED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW plaintiff CITY OF MERCED who hereby requests for a 

continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling Conference set for February 10, 2016 to 

a date convenient to the court in April 2016. The basis for the request of the 

continuance is as follows: 

1. The lawsuit was filed on November 9, 2015. 

CITY OF MERCED, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and 

DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive 

 Defendants. 

 CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01694

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

CONTINUANCE OF 

MANDATORY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE; ORDER 

THEREON 

Date: February 10, 2016 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Court: Courtroom 1 (SMS) Judge: Hon. Sandra M. Snyder 

Case 1:15-cv-01694-SMS Document 6 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 3
-2- 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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. The lawsuit was served on the defendant on or about January 5, 2016 

which is compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 4. 

 3. Upon information and belief a responsive pleading to the Complaint 

by the defendant is not due until March 7, 2016. 

 4. No responsive pleading has been filed by the defendant as of the date 

of this pleading. 

 5. As no responsive pleading has been filed by the defendant, plaintiff is 

unable to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 

 6. Since a responsive pleading will be due by March 7, 2016, it is in the 

interest of judicial economy and efficiency for the Mandatory Scheduling 

Conference to be continued to a date in April 2016. 

WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that the court continue the 

Mandatory Scheduling Conference presently scheduled for February 10, 2016 to a 

date in April 2016. 

Dated: January 29, 2016 GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN, & KRIKES, LLP 

By:____________________________________ 

Jeffrey M. Soll, Esq 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

CITY OF MERCED 

Case 1:15-cv-01694-SMS Document 6 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 3
-3- 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

 O R D E R 

 Upon reading the Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance of Mandatory 

Scheduling Conference and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be 

continued from February 10, 2016 to April 27, 2016 at 

2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to defendant. 

DATED: 2/2/2016 /s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER 

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01694-SMS Document 6 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 3