John Dovichi v. Robert Venable ( 2019 )

1 XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California 2 ALBERTO L. GONZALEZ, State Bar No. 117605 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 ERICK J. RHOAN, State Bar No. 283588 Deputy Attorney General 4 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 5 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7363 6 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: Erick.Rhoan@doj.ca.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendant Venable 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CIVIL DIVISION 11 12 JOHN DOVICHI, 1:19-cv-00725-LJO-JLT 13 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 14 INITIAL MANDATORY SCHEDULING v. CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 15 (Doc. 11) 16 ROBERT VENABLE; and DOES I to 100, 17 Defendants. 18 19 A scheduling conference in this case is currently set for August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their 21 counsel of record, agree to and request a continuance of the scheduling conference to Monday, 22 September 23, 2019, or a similar date convenient for the Court. 23 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of 24 Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 25 604, 609 (1992). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good 26 cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 27 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 28 / / / 1 Here, the instant stipulation is necessitated on several grounds: 2 1. Defense counsel was assigned to this case on June 4, 2019. Based on the method 3 and manner of service, Defendant Venable’s deadline to file a responsive pleading was only 4 approximately one week away. Furthermore, upon review of the original Complaint, there were 5 several pleading issues that warranted an informal meet-and-confer with opposing counsel. 6 2. Defense counsel attempted to contact the attorney listed on the pleading to obtain an 7 extension of time, but it was later learned that the attorney was no longer with the law firm. 8 Plaintiff’s current counsel of record was able to contact defense counsel on June 12, 2019, and the 9 parties informally stipulated to extending Defendant Venable’s time to file a responsive pleading 10 to July 15, 2019. 11 3. Between June 12 and July 17, 2019, the parties informally conferred about several 12 pleading issues with the original Complaint. As a result of these efforts, the parties stipulated to 13 using the current operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 8.) 14 4. The Court granted the parties’ stipulation on July 31, 2019, allowing the parties to 15 use the First Amended Complaint, as well as giving Defendant Venable fourteen-days (or August 16 14, 2019) to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 9.) 17 5. Before and after the Court’s granting of the parties’ stipulation, Defendant Venable 18 has been preparing his Answer to the First Amended Complaint. Also, since June 12, 2019, the 19 parties have been occupied with several other matters, such as attending court hearings, preparing 20 and responding to discovery, attending depositions, and preparing for trial on several matters. 21 Additionally, defense counsel was out of the office between July 29 to August 5, 2019, on a pre- 22 arranged vacation out-of-state. 23 6. According to the Court’s May 23, 2019 Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling 24 Conference, the parties’ joint status report is due Monday, August 12, 2019. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) 25 Given the parties’ diligent efforts in preparing the First Amended Complaint and Defendant 26 Venable’s preparation of his Answer, the parties have been unable to meet-and-confer about the 27 subject matters required to be discussed by the Court’s May 23, 2019 Order. 28 / / / 1 7. Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate as follows: the scheduling conference 2 currently set for August 19, 2019, is continued to September 23, 2019, or a similar date 3 convenient for the Court. (Defense counsel is out of town for a mandatory training conference set 4 for September 24 through 25, 2019.) All other deadlines and requirements set forth in the Court’s 5 May 23, 2019, Order shall remain intact. 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 Dated: August 9, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 8 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 9 ALBERTO L. GONZALEZ Supervising Deputy Attorney General 10 /s/ Erick J. Rhoan 11 ERICK J. RHOAN 12 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Venable 13 Dated: August 9, 2019 RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES 14 /s/ Joseph Whittington (as auth. 8/9/2019) 15 JOSEPH WHITTINGTON, ESQ. 16 Attorney for Plaintiff 17 18 ORDER 19 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulation to continue the initial scheduling conference 20 is GRANTED. The scheduling conference currently set for August 19, 2019, is continued to 21 September 23, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. All other deadlines and requirements set forth in the Court’s 22 May 23, 2019 Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference remain in effect. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: August 9, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28