Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01965/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01965-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Suman D. Bhakta
Defendant
Nutan S. Bhakta
Defendant
Caprice Motel
Defendant
Cecil Shaw
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

Shaw v. Suman D. Bhakta, et al

2

nd Stipulation For Extension of Time Case No. 1: 14-cv-01965

1

Bruce A. Neilson #096952

7108 N. Fresno St. #410

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone (559) 432-9831

Facsimile (559) 432-1837

Attorney for Defendants

Suman D. Bhakta and Nutan 

S. Bhakta,both individually and dba 

Caprice Motel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

* * * * *

CECIL SHAW,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

SUMAN D. BHAKTA, individually and dba 

CAPRICE MOTEL; NUTAN S. BHAKTA, 

individually and dba CAPRICE MOTEL;

 Defendants.

____________________________________

))))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1: 14-cv-01965---JLT

SECOND STIPULATION AND 

PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME FOR SUMAN D. BHAKTA, 

individually and dba CAPRICE MOTEL;

and NUTAN S. BHAKTA, individually 

and dba CAPRICE MOTEL TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

(Doc 8)

WHEREAS:

1. Plaintiff CECIL SHAW filed this action on December 10, 2014.

2. This is the second request for an extension of time for SUMAN D. BHAKTA, individually 

and dba CAPRICE MOTEL; and NUTAN S. BHAKTA, individually and dba CAPRICE MOTEL 

(“Defendants”). A previous extension of time was granted by the plaintiff within the statutory 

allowance; thus, court approval is required for a further extension of time.

3. Plaintiff and Defendants are in settlement negotiations at this time.

4. Defendants have obtained a CASp inspection, and are waiting for the report to be written so 

that a proposed plan of remediation and settlement can be agreed upon. 

5. The parties agree that settlement of this case would save valuable court time and resources.

6. The parties have agreed to extend Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint until March 

11, 2015, subject to the court's approval, and believe that the case can be settled within that 

Case 1:14-cv-01965---JLT Document 9 Filed 02/27/15 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

Shaw v. Suman D. Bhakta, et al

2

nd Stipulation For Extension of Time Case No. 1: 14-cv-01965

2

time.

7. This extension of time will not alter any date or event already set by Court order, including 

the mandatory scheduling conference.

NOW THEREFORE, Defendants through their attorneys, and Plaintiff Cecil Shaw, through 

his attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Defendants SUMAN D. BHAKTA, 

individually and dba CAPRICE MOTEL; and NUTAN S. BHAKTA, individually and dba 

CAPRICE MOTEL to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be extended up to and 

including March 11, 2015, pending court approval.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

MOORE LAW FIRM, PC

Dated: February 25, 2015 ______/s/Tanya Moore 

 Tanya Moore, Attorney for Plaintiff Cecil Shaw

Dated: February 25, 2015 ______/s/Bruce A. Neilson 

Bruce A. Neilson, Attorney for Defendants

Suman D. Bhakta and Nutan S. Bhakta,both 

individually and dba Caprice Motel

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01965---JLT Document 9 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 2