Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01703-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Geico
Defendant
Geico Casualty Company
Defendant
Geico General Insurance Company
Defendant
Geico Indemnity Co.
Defendant
PJ's Auto Body
Plaintiff
Johnnie Walker
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

Neville L. Johnson (State Bar No. 66329)

Brian A. Rishwain (State Bar No. 156403)

Douglas L. Johnson (State Bar No. 210515)

JOHNSON & RISHWAIN LLP

439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: (310) 975-1080

Facismile: (310) 975-1095

njohnson@jrllp.com; brishwain@jrllp.com; 

djohnson@jrllp.com

Maxwell M. Blecher (SBN 26202)

BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.

611 West Sixth Street, 20 Floor th

Los Angeles, California 90017-3120

Telephone: (213) 622-4222

Fax: (213) 622-1656

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNIE WALKER d/b/a PJ'S

AUTO BODY, an individual, 

and on behalf of those

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a Foreign

Corporation, GEICO, a Foreign

Corporation, GEICO CASUALTY

COMPANY, a Foreign

Corporation, and GEICO

INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Foreign

Corporation, and DOES 1-50;

and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

____________________________/

No. 2:06-cv-1703-MCE-DAD

ORDER STIPULATED REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO DISMISS

HEARING DATE

///

Case 2:06-cv-01703-MCE -DAD Document 32 Filed 10/02/06 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

The parties jointly requests that the Court continue the

hearing date for Defendants GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss from

October 16, 2006 to October 30, 2006. 

Although parties may enter into stipulations that do not

require court approval, a stipulation to continue a court date

does require court approval. [See Local Rule 78-230(g)]. In

determining whether to approve a stipulation for a continuance of

a court date, the court must receive sufficient information to

determine if the requested modification is justified. 

In light of the fact no information was provided to the

court to support the requested continuance herein, the

continuance is DENIED. 

All previously set dates are confirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 29, 2006 

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-01703-MCE -DAD Document 32 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2