Free Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California


File Size: 51.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 449 Words, 2,902 Characters
Page Size: 611.28 x 790.92 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/192199/3.pdf

Download Case Management Statement - District Court of California ( 51.5 kB)


Preview Case Management Statement - District Court of California
j _ i i Case 5:07-cv-02660-PVT Document 3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
l 1 FRANK E. MAYO/ State Bm #42972
. A 2 Law Office of Frank E. Mayo E Q
L., 480 San Antonio Rd., Suite 230
4 (650) 96*8901 A ttrcuasap Entities
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs -
1: 6 gi?/5
I 7
8 5
‘ of 7.2
9 .
1 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 1
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[ 1 2 _
I1.3 PEDRO LAVARLAS and NIEVES ) Case No. C 07 02660 PVT
LAVARIAS, )
1 4 )
1 5 Plaintiffs, ) CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
) STATEMENT
l 16 VS- )
i ) Date: 8/2l/07
' 1 7 JAYDENE BARROGA and EDGAR. ) Time: 2:00 P.M.
1 8 BARROGA , , )
, )
{ 1 9 Defendants. )
2 0
E 2 ZL Pursuant to Northern District Court Rule 16.1, Plaintiffs by and through their counsel
z
i 2 2 submit this Case Management Statement.
i
2 3
24 . . . . .. .
This court has Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims based on diversity of citizenship.
2 5
T 2 6 Venue is properly in this court because Defendants’ acts occurred in Santa Clara County.
2 7
2 3 Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants stem from Defendants misappropriation of the sales -
1 .
- CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

p _ Case 5:07-cv-02660-PVT Document 3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
1 proceeds of Plaintiffs’ Santa Clara County home and fraud which occurred in Santa Clara County
p 2 when Defendants represented they would take the sales proceeds and use them to purchase two
3 homes in Las Vegas, Nevada for the benefit of Plaintiffs. Defendants did not abide by their
; representations, instead Defendants used the money for their own benefit in purchasing a home for
6 themselves.
7
1 8 Defendants have not Answered this Complaint, although they have been properly served.
i 9 Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached in principal a settlement although there is no
l 1 O guarantee the Defendants will sign the settlement agreement which has been forwarded on this date.
i lt is anticipated Defendants will sign the Agreement and execute documents necessary for
13 consummate of settlement which consist of a Promissory Note secured by Deed of Trust on the Las
1 4 Vegas property.
i 15 Should Defendants not execute documents Plaintiffs will take their default. These
I 6 l documents should be delivered to Plaintiffs’ counsel within thirty days. It is therefore requested this
E 1 7 matter be continued for a period of sixty days. Within this sixty-day period Plaintiffs’ counsel will
either obtain dismissal or a Default Judgment. pp ppppp _ppppp
i 2 0 Dated: August 13, 2007 '"`'
A Frank E. Mayo, Attorney fo a1nt1ffs
2 1
i 2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5 p l
2 7 I I ‘
as _
l
l

Case 5:07-cv-02660-PVT

Document 3

Filed 08/14/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 5:07-cv-02660-PVT

Document 3

Filed 08/14/2007

Page 2 of 2