Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 38

STIPULATION and ORDER to Vacate or Continue Trial, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/4/2015. (The trial date is vacated until after the Court rules on Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF 25). Court will schedule a case managemen t conference after it decides Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the parties shall be prepared to set a trial date at that case management conference. Pretrial Conference set for 6/3/2015, and Jury Trial set for 8/4/2015 are VACATED.) (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 William J. Smith, CA Bar No. 056116 wsmith@wjslawoffice.com SMITH JOHNSON, INC. 5588 N. Palm Ave Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: 559.432.0986 Facsimile: 559.432.0988 Attorneys for Plaintiff, TREVOR WEEKS 6 7 Charles L. Thompson, IV, CA Bar No. 139927 charles.thompson@ogletreedeakins.com 8 Jill V. Cartwright, CA Bar No. 260519 jill.cartwright@ogletreedeakins.com 9 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 10 One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 11 Telephone: 415.442.4810 Facsimile: 415.442.4870 12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 TREVOR WEEKS 18 19 20 21 22 Case No. 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE OR CONTINUE TRIAL v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation Defendant. Complaint Filed: October 10, 2013 Trial Date: August 4, 2015 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Trevor Weeks and Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UPRR”) (collectively, the “Parties”) submit this stipulation to vacate or continue the trial date. Trial is currently set for August 4, 2015. (ECF Nos. 11 and 32). On March 2, 2015, in compliance with the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, UPRR filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 25 and 32). Hearing on the 1 Case No. 13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT 1 motion was set for April 6, 2015. (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff failed to timely file an Opposition and 2 the Court took the matter under submission. (ECF No. 28). 3 On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to extend time to file an Opposition. 4 (ECF No. 31-32). On April 10, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and 5 permitted Plaintiff to file an Opposition to Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 32). In the Order, the 6 Court declined to reset the hearing date on the Summary Judgment Motion and indicated it would 7 only set the motion for hearing if it is necessary, after the Court reviews the papers. (ECF No. 32). 8 On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 33). On 9 April 27, 2015, UPRR filed its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 10 34). Pursuant to the Court’s April 10, 2015 Order, the motion is taken under submission by the 11 Court with no oral argument scheduled. 12 Given the uncertainty of when the Court may rule on the Motion, to promote judicial 13 economy, and to keep the parties from expending resources to prepare the case for trial when there 14 is uncertainty regarding the outcome of the Summary Judgment Motion, the parties respectfully 15 request the Court vacate the trial date or continue trial until after it is sure to rule on the Summary 16 Judgment Motion. This request will promote judicial economy by freeing up the Court’s calendar 17 to schedule trial in cases that are confirmed to need a trial, as well as not make the parties appear 18 for pretrial proceedings that are uncertain. This request will also conserve the Parties’ resources in 19 not having to prepare for trial when the case may be dismissed on Summary Judgment. 20 Given these reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court vacate the August 4, 2015 21 trial date. The Parties request the Court schedule a case management conference after it rules on 22 the summary judgment motion, and that the parties appear at the conference ready to set a trial 23 date. In the event the Court grants UPRR’s summary judgment motion, a case management 24 conference will not be necessary. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 Case No. 13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT 1 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 DATED: May 4, 2015 SMITH JOHNSON, INC. 4 By: 5 6 /s/ Williiam Smith (as authorized on 5/1/15) William J. Smith Attorneys for Plaintiff TREVOR WEEKS 7 8 9 DATED: May 4, 2015 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 By: 11 12 /s/ Jill V. Cartwright Charles L. Thompson, IV Jill V. Cartwright Attorneys for Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 13 14 15 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, 16 The trial date is vacated until after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion for Summary 17 Judgment. (ECF 25). Court will schedule a case management conference after it decides 18 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the parties shall be prepared to set a trial date at 19 that case management conference. 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 4, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. 13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?