Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Grupo Radio Centro SAB de CV
-
Misc | Filed: January 11, 2018 | Entered: January 11, 2018 Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. et al v. Grupo Radio Centro LA, LLC
Personal Property: Other | California Central
Status Report
STATUS REPORT /Joint Status Report Confirming Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Spanish Broadcasting System of California, Inc., Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc., Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.. (Sammataro, James)
-
Order | Filed: January 05, 2018 | Entered: January 08, 2018 Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. et al v. Grupo Radio Centro LA, LLC
Personal Property: Other | California Central
Order
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT REQUEST FOR A BRIEF STAY OF THE PRETRIAL DEADLINE IN LIGHT OF THEIR SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPAL 69 by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Parties Notice of Settlement In Principal and Request for a Brief Stay Pending Completion of the Settlement. Having considered the Request for a Brief Stay Pending Completion of Settlement, and good cause having been shown: It is hereby ORDERED that the Request for a Brief Stay Pending Completion of the Settlement is GRANTED. All of the existing pre-trial deadlines shall be stayed and, if necessary, extended by eleven (11) days. The parties shall file a joint status report by no later than January 12, 2018, either confirming that the settlement has been fully executed or requesting the reinstatement of all of the pre-trial deadlines (as extended).IT IS SO ORDERED. (ab)
-
Order | Filed: December 11, 2017 | Entered: December 12, 2017 Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. et al v. Grupo Radio Centro LA, LLC
Personal Property: Other | California Central
Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. The Court held a pre-discovery motion teleconference on November 30, 2017. The Court informed the parties at that time that their proposed motions would be untimely given the then-impending - and now past - discovery cutoff. Insufficient time remained in the discovery period for briefing under the Local Rules, let alone for a decision by the Court. The Court nevertheless proposed a compromise that would allow certain depositions noticed by both Plaintiff and Defendant to go forward. The parties met and conferred and notified the Court by e-mail dated December 4, 2017, that they did not agree to proceed as suggested. The Court notes that fact discovery is now closed absent a showing of good cause for a continuance or to reopen discovery made to the District Judge. (ec)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login