Dizon

Dizon v. Alegre

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 30, 20251:23-cv-01366California702 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

Justin D. Harris, Bar No. 199112

HARRIS LAW FIRM, PC

7110 North Fresno Street, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93720 Telephone (559) 272-5700 Facsimile (559) 554-9989 jdh@harrislawfirm.net

5 Attorneys for Amor Alegre and Aurora Rigon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SHEILLI DIZON and MARK JASON Case No.: 1:23-cv-01366-JLT-BAM ESPEJO,

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

v.

AMOR ALEGRE and AURORA RIGON,

Defendants.

Pursuant to Local Rule 143 the parties stipulate and request the Court to order that the scheduling order entered on February 5, 2024 (Doc. 14) be modified by extending the discovery deadlines. The court granted one 60-day modification of discovery deadlines previously. (Doc. 14) “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted. Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.