Brill v. Postle ( 2020 )

1 Michael L. Lipman (SBN 66605) Karen L. Alexander (SBN 265926) 2 DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2900 3 San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: (619) 744-2200 4 Facsimile: (619) 744-2201 mllipman@duanemorris.com 5 klalexander@duanemorris.com 6 Heather U. Guerena (SBN 238122) 7727 Herschel Avenue 7 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 866-1020 8 Facsimile: (858) 551-4388 huguerena@elevationca.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 King’s Casino, LLC 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 VERONICA BRILL, et al., ) Case No. 19-cv-02027-MCE-AC ) 15 Plaintiffs, ) The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. ) 16 v. ) STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL 17 ) PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER TO MICHAEL L. POSTLE, et al. POSTPONE RULE 26(f) ) CONFERENCE, ORDER THEREON 18 Defendants. ) ) Complaint Filed: October 8, 2019 19 ) 20 ) 21 Plaintiffs Veronica Brill et al. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel; Defendant King’s 22 Casino, LLC d/b/a The Saloon at Stones Gambling Hall (“King’s Casino”), by and through 23 counsel; and Defendant Justin Kuraitis (“Kuraitis,” and collectively with King’s Casino, 24 “Defendants”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 25 First, that on October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs served King’s Casino with the Complaint 26 and Summons. Pursuant to this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, the deadline for 27 the parties to meet and confer regarding their discovery plan as required by Federal Rule of 28 1 Civil Procedure 26(f) is presently December 16, 2019, which is 60 days from the date of 2 service of the Complaint upon King’s Casino. Any amendments to the Initial Pretrial 3 Scheduling Order require a showing of good cause under Rule 16(b). [Doc. 3, pp. 2, 6.] 4 Second, that on November 9, 2019, Plaintiffs requested that Kuraitis waive service 5 of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). Kuraitis agreed to do so, and 6 Plaintiffs filed his waiver of service on November 19, 2019. [Doc. 10.] 7 Third, that Plaintiffs have not yet served defendant Michael L. Postle. 8 Fourth, that King’s Casino and Kuraitis have informed Plaintiffs that they intend to 9 file Rule 12 Motions challenging, inter alia, the Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 10 over the state law claims against them and the Complaint’s failure to state any claim upon 11 which relief can be granted. Per the parties’ Stipulations and this Court’s Order, the 12 deadline for both Defendants to file their Rule 12 Motions is presently February 5, 2020. 13 [Docs. 11-13.] 14 Fifth, that the parties jointly request to postpone the Rule 26(f) conference and all 15 related discovery deadlines until after all Defendants have been served, after this Court has 16 ruled on all Rule 12 Motions, and after all Defendants have filed an Answer. Good cause 17 exists because the type, extent, and nature of discovery will undoubtedly be shaped by the 18 outcome of the Rule 12 Motions. Without knowing which parties and factual issues will 19 remain in the case, it will be very difficult for the parties to meaningfully discuss the topics 20 required by Rule 26(f) or formulate their Joint Discovery Plan, much less make Initial 21 Disclosures and engage in written discovery or depositions. 22 Sixth, that Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the 23 party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 24 Cir. 1992). Diligence is not an issue here. The parties seek to postpone the Rule 26(f) 25 26 27 28 1 conference not because they cannot meet the Court’s deadline, but because they believe it 2 would be inefficient and ineffective to commence discovery prior to resolving which parties 3 and causes of action will remain in this case after the pleading stage. Thus, the parties’ 4 request to amend the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order is supported by good cause. 5 By entering into this Stipulation, Defendants do not enter a general appearance and 6 do not waive (and expressly reserve) all rights, legal challenges, and arguments, including 7 any jurisdictional or other defenses that may be raised in a motion under Federal Rule of 8 Civil Procedure 12(b). 9 Accordingly, the parties jointly request that this Court amend the Initial Pretrial 10 Scheduling Order to postpone the Rule 26(f) discovery conference and all related discovery 11 dates and deadlines (including the filing of the joint discovery plan, the making of initial 12 disclosures and the commencement of discovery) until 30 days after the Court has ruled on 13 the Rule 12 Motions and the last Defendant has filed an Answer. 14 SO STIPULATED. 15 Dated: December 9, 2019 DUANE MORRIS LLP By: s/Michael L. Lipman 16 Michael L. Lipman 17 Duane Morris LLP Attorneys for Defendant 18 King’s Casino, LLC 19 Dated: December 9, 2019 THE VERSTANDIG LAW FIRM, LLC 20 By: s/ Maurice B. VerStandig (as authorized on 21 12/9/2019) Maurice B. VerStandig (pro hac vice) 22 The VerStandig Law Firm, LLC 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 Dated: December 11, 2019 s/ Justin Kuraitis Justin Kuraitis (in propia persona) 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the parties’ Stipulation to Amend the Initial Pretrial 3 || Scheduling Order, and finding good cause therefore, hereby orders: The Initial Pretrial 4 || Scheduling Order (p. 2, lines 15-17) will be amended such that the parties shall meet and 5 || confer regarding their discovery plan as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) 6 || within 30 days of the date on which the last Defendant files an Answer. 7 IT |S SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: January 6, 2020 10 MORRISON C. whe G : UNITED STATES DISTRI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE No. 19¢v2027-MCE-AC