Donovan v. Diestel Turkey Ranch
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-07125
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Donovan v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Judge Seeborg approved a stipulation setting deadlines, making two pending matters moot, and vacating a hearing.
Robert Donovan and the putative similarly situated plaintiffs, and Diestel Turkey Ranch; the order set filing deadlines, made two pending matters moot, and vacated a hearing.
What happened
In Donovan v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, the parties agreed to a schedule for an amended complaint and the defendant’s response. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court ordered Robert Donovan to file a First Amended Complaint by January 5, 2021, and Diestel Turkey Ranch to respond by January 19, 2021. It also ruled that the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice were moot, and vacated the January 7, 2021 hearing.
Judge Richard Seeborg issued the order on December 7, 2020, after finding good cause based on the parties’ stipulation.
The detailed version
- Donovan v. Diestel Turkey Ranch · No. 3:20-cv-07125
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 7, 2020
Background
Robert Donovan brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The opinion consists of an order addressing the parties’ stipulation. It does not explain the underlying claims or the issues raised in the defendant’s pending motions.
Orders entered
The court found good cause and ordered:
- Donovan to file a First Amended Complaint no later than January 5, 2021. - Diestel Turkey Ranch to file its response no later than January 19, 2021. - The defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, identified as ECF 25, was moot. - The defendant’s pending request for judicial notice, identified as ECF 26, was moot. - The hearing scheduled for January 7, 2021, was vacated.
Disposition
The order resolved the parties’ stipulation and scheduling issues. It did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order on December 7, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.