Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 James A. Clark, Bar No. 278372 james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com 2 Renee P. Ortega, Bar No. 283441 renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com 3 Ariel A. Pytel, Bar No. 328917 ariel.pytel@towerlegalgroup.com 4 TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105 5 Sacramento, California 95670 Telephone: 916.361-6609 6 Fax No.: 916.361.6019 7 A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Bar No. 272023 jnalbandyan@lntriallawyers.com 8 Vanoohi Torossian, Bar No. 328536 vtorossian@lntriallawyers.com 9 LEVIN & NALBANDYAN, LLP 811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 10 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: 213.232.4848 11 Fax No.: 213.232.4849 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SCOTT SEXTON 13 [Additional counsel on following page] 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SCOTT SEXTON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00898-TLN-AC 18 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AMENDING 19 THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND v. ORDER 20 SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware 21 Corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Nicholas McKinney, Bar No. 322792 nmckinney@littler.com 2 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.830.7200 4 Fax No.: 916.561.0828 5 Attorneys for Defendant SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff Scott Sexton (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant”) 2 (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and 3 respectfully stipulate as follows: 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 12, 2021, and the matter was 5 removed to this Court on May 17, 2021; 6 WHEREAS, at the time of removal, counsel for Defendant were Robert Conti and 7 Kayla Cox; 8 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2021, this Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order 9 (“Scheduling Order”), which requires the Parties to complete discovery no later than 240 days after 10 the last day that Defendant may answer the Complaint (which here was March 31, 2023).1 11 Accordingly, the current discovery cut off was November 27, 2023. 12 WHEREAS, since the time of the filing of this matter, former defense counsel Robert 13 Conti has passed away and Kayla Cox has moved to another firm. 14 WHEREAS, on June 2, 2022, Counsel for Defendant, Nicholas McKinney, substituted 15 in. None of the original defense attorneys on this matter remain on the case or with the firm Littler 16 Mendelson. 17 WHEREAS, with the pleadings in this matter resolved, the Parties intend on mediation 18 for an early resolution of this matter. 19 WHEREAS, the counsel for Defendant will be on parental leave starting on or about 20 August 20, 2023 through the end of the year. 21 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order as follows: 22 The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 23 litigation…” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 24 and internal quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 25 the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 26 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by 27 28 1 Over the last two years the Parties have been engaged in motion practice regarding the pleadings 1 allowing summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). 2 To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must 3 generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. 4 Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 5 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it 6 became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good 7 cause,” courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice 8 in allowing the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would 9 result in prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) 10 (involving amendment of pleadings). 11 Here, good cause exists for a modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order given the 12 Parties’ inability to complete necessary discovery within the Scheduling Order’s timetable. This 13 matter was initially filed on April 12, 2021, the matter was removed on May 17, 2021, and the 14 Scheduling Order was ordered on May 18, 2021. Counsel for Defendant changed since the outset 15 of this matter. The Parties and the court spent almost two years engaged in motion practice over the 16 sufficiency of the pleadings. The Parties hope to negotiate an early resolution of this matter. Defense 17 counsel will be on parental leave during the last few months, through the end, of the current 18 discovery period, as set by the Scheduling Order. 19 THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties stipulate to continue the 20 discovery cut off (and related deadlines) out by 365 days (which would be November 27, 2024 for 21 the discovery cutoff). 22 Dated: June 13, 2023 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 23 /s/ Nicholas W. McKinney NICHOLAS W. MCKINNEY 24 Attorneys for Defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. 25 Dated: June 13, 2023 LEVIN & NALBANDYAN, LLP. 26 /s/ Vanoohi Torossian (as authorized on 6/13/23) 27 VANOOHI TOROSSIAN Attorneys for Plaintiff SCOTT SEXTON 28 ] ORDER 2 3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: June 13, 2023 f /) 7 Troy L. Nunley □ g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TATNIT ATIAN TOA ANIENTTY CACE NA 9.91 NMNEGe □□□□ □□