(PC) Freeman v. Clark ( 2021 )

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 Attorney General of California 2 TRACY S. HENDRICKSON, State Bar No. 155081 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 JOSEPH R. WHEELER, State Bar No. 216721 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 5 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7315 6 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: Joseph.Wheeler@doj.ca.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants K. Clark and C. Bell 8 Greg W. Garrotto, State Bar #89542 9 LAW OFFICES OF GREG W. GARROTTO 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2000 10 Los Angeles, California 90067 11 Telephone (310) 229-9200 Fax: 310-229-9209 12 E-Mail: jjggarrotto@msn.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Leroy Freeman 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 FRESNO DIVISION 16 17 18 LEROY FREEMAN, 1:21-cv-00611-NONE-JLT 19 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE AND RESET SCHEDULING 20 v. CONFERENCE (Doc. 9) 21 CLARK, et al., 22 23 24 A scheduling conference in this case is currently set for July 12, 2021, and the parties are 25 required to submit a joint scheduling report by July 5, 2021. (ECF No. 4.) Under Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, by and through their respective counsel 27 28 1 of record, request that the scheduling conference and deadline for submitting a joint scheduling 2 report be vacated and reset to sometime after a defendant has filed an answer in this action. 3 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of 4 Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 5 975 F.2d 604, 609. 6 Good cause exists here because Defendants Clark and Bell, who are both being sued in their 7 official capacities, have filed a motion to dismiss, asserting, among other things, Eleventh 8 Amendment immunity. (ECF No. 7.) Until the Court rules on the motion to dismiss and the 9 pleadings are settled, the parties cannot properly prepare an accurate joint scheduling report or 10 effectively participate in a scheduling conference. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate as follows: the scheduling conference 2 currently set for July 12, 2021, and the deadline for the parties to submit a joint scheduling report, 3 be vacated. The scheduling conference be reset to sometime after any defendant files an answer 4 in this action. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 Dated: June 23, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 7 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 8 TRACY S. HENDRICKSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General 9 /s/ JOSEPH R. WHEELER 10 JOSEPH R. WHEELER 11 Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 12 K. Clark and C. Bell 13 14 Dated: June 23, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 15 LAW OFFICES OF GREG W. GARROTTO 16 /s/ Greg W. Garrotto 1 17 Greg W. Garrotto Attorneys for Plaintiff Leroy Freeman 18 19 ORDER 20 Based upon the above stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the scheduling 21 conference set for July 12, 2021, is CONTINUED to October 25, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. A joint 22 scheduling conference report shall be filed at least one week before. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 23, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 25 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 1 As authorized via e-mail on June 23, 2021.