Deeths v. Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, et al

Filing 18

ORDER re: Third Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/16/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5

David Sheuerman, SB#78132
Monique Shamun-Khasho, SB#78132
SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN
1033 Willow Street
San Jose, California 95125
[phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
Attorneys for Defendant
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
CHRISTINE DEETHS, an individual,

Case No: 1:12-cv-02096-LJO-JLT

10
Plaintiff(s),
11

THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

v.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

(Doc. 17)
LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S
HOSPITAL AT STANFORD, a California
corporation; JOHN STIRLING, Jr., individually;
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, a
California non-profit corporation; CHRISTOPHER
HARRIS, individually; BAKERSFIELD
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a California corporation;
ANTHONY THOMAS, individually; LEGACY
BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; TARA CRUZ, an individual; EDDIE
CRUZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20
Plaintiff CHRISTINE DEETHS and defendant LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S

21
22
23

HOSPITAL AT STANFORD by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as
follows:
WHEREAS, this case involves multiple legal issues, upon which the parties are in the process

24
25

of meeting and conferring.

26

WHEREAS, the parties are meeting and conferring in an effort to resolve the disputed issues

27

through possible voluntary dismissal of Defendant LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

28

AT STANFORD or a possible narrowing of the issues to be potentially raised in a Federal Rule of Civil
Page 1

THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

Procedure 12(b) Motion, in order to spare the resources of the Court.

2
3
4
5
6

WHEREAS, the court’s order dated March 19, 2013, on the parties’ second stipulation noted
that no further extensions were allowed, as it was the parties’ third stipulation and that no reason for the
extension was noted in the earlier stipulation. However, it was defendant CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL
CENTER who had filed its third stipulation on March 19, 2013 and not defendant LUCILE PACKARD
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD.

7

WHEREAS, defendant LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD had

8
only filed one prior stipulation at that time and its reasons for meeting and conferring were cited in the

9
letter to the Court provided simultaneously with the stipulation. Therefore, it is the understanding of the

10
11
12
13

parties that the language in the March 19, 2013, order disallowing further extensions, was intended for
defendant CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER and inadvertently directed at defendant LUCILE
PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD.
WHEREAS, the parties will conclude the meet and confer process on the issues in the next 8

14
15

days.

16

STIPULATION

17

THAT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the parties have reached the following stipulation:

18

1.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the time for defendant LUCILE

19

PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD to respond to plaintiff Christine Deeths’

20

Complaint for Damages is hereby extended by 7 days.

21

2.

22

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

23

The new deadline to file a response to the complaint is now April 23, 2013.

Dated: April 15, 2013

SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN

24
25

By: /s/ Monique Shamun-Khasho, Esquire
DAVID SHEUERMAN
MONIQUE SHAMUN-KHASHO
Attorneys for Defendant
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT
STANFORD

26
27
28
Page 2

THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1
2

Dated: April 15, 2013

THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. McMILLAN, APC

3
By: /s/ Shawn A. McMillan, Esquire (as authorized on 4/15/13)
SHAWN A. McMILLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHRISTINE DEETHS

4
5
6

ORDER

7
8

Before the Court is yet another stipulation of the parties to extend time for a defendant to file a

9

responsive pleading. (Doc. 17) The first stipulation was filed by Defendant Cedars Sinai (Doc. 7), the

10

second was filed by Lucille Salter Packard Children’s Hospital (“Lucile Salter) (Doc. 9), the third was

11

filed by Cedars Sinai (Doc. 11), the fourth was filed by Lucille Salter (Doc. 13) and the fifth was filed,

12

once again by Cedars Sinai (Doc. 15). None of these requests described any reason for the stipulated

13

extension. (Docs. 7, 9, 11, 13, 15) As to the last stipulated extension filed on March 19, 2013, the

14

Court’s order, though granting the stipulation, noted, “No further extensions will be authorized.”

15

(Doc. 14 at 2)
In the current stipulation, once again, little information is provided explaining what is occurring

16
17

such that the responsive pleading cannot be filed. Though counsel report they are “meeting and

18

conferring” regarding the “multiple issues” the litigation raises and that they are hopeful that this will

19

result in a voluntary dismissal or narrowing of issues that will be raised in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)

20

motion, this scant information provides the Court no ability to gauge why the parties have been unable,

21

in the nearly three months since Lucile Salter was served with summons and complaint, to resolve these

22

“multiple issues” or to convince themselves that resolution will not occur.
Nevertheless, the Court will grant this final extension of time to file a responsive pleading.

23
24

This Court cannot and will not permit any further delays in moving this case forward. Moreover, in the

25

event that a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion is filed, counsel for Lucile Salter SHALL recite in detail the

26

meet and confer efforts made toward alleviating the need for the motion.

27

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

28

1.

The stipulated extension of time to April 23, 2013 for Defendant Lucile Salter’s to file

Page 3

THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

its responsive pleading in GRANTED. Absolutely no further extensions of time will be authorized;

2

2.

In the event Defendant Lucile Salter files a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

3

P. 12(b), in its moving papers, counsel SHALL recite in detail all meet and confer efforts made toward

4

alleviating the need for the motion.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

DEAC_Signature-END:

9

9j7khijed

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4

THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT