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)

1
2
3
4
5

William J. Smith, CA Bar No. 056116
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
8 Jill V. Cartwright, CA Bar No. 260519
[e-mail]
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