Ruiz v. Moreles, et al.

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING the parties' request for an extension of time to 7/1/2014 for receipt of defendants' response to the first amended complaint. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/23/2014. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendants California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and Morelos

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

FRESNO DIVISION

12
13
NOAH JOHN RUIZ,

No. 1:14-CV-00179 AWI-SMS

14
15
v.
16
17

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION FOR DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[L.R. 143, 144(a)]

MORELOS, et al.,
Action Filed: February 10, 2014

18

Defendants.

19
20
21

Under Local Rules 143 and 144, Plaintiff and Defendants California Department of

22

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Morelos stipulate, by and through their respective

23

counsel of record, to an extension, up to and including July 1, 2014, for Defendants CDCR and

24

Morelos to respond to the first amended complaint. CDCR’s response was due on May 21, and

25

Morelos’s response is due June 27. Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because the

26

undersigned defense counsel was assigned to this case just recently and was unaware of the

27

response deadline for CDCR until it had already passed. Also, defense counsel has no documents

28

concerning the alleged incident to properly respond to the complaint.
1
Stipulation and Order for Extension for Defendants CDCR and Morelos to Respond to First Amended Complaint
(1:14-cv-00179 AWI-SMS)

1

When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend

2

the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the

3

original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). If the request is made after the time has expired,

4

the court may extend the time upon a showing of excusable neglect. Id. 6(b)(1)(B). An extension

5

to respond to the complaint may be made by stipulation of the parties. L.R. 144(a).

6

Defendants request, and Plaintiff agrees, to a forty-one-day extension for CDCR to respond

7

to the first amended complaint. CDCR was served with process on April 30, 2014. (ECF No.

8

12.) Its response was due on May 21. This case was assigned to the undersigned defense counsel

9

on May 16. At the time the case was assigned to her, defense counsel was unaware that CDCR

10

had been served and that the deadline to respond was May 21. Defense counsel was unable to

11

review the complaint or the Court’s docket because she was out of the office on May 19 and 20

12

for trial preparation in another case, and on May 21, she was working on a summary-judgment

13

motion due in another case.

14

On May 22, defense counsel learned for the first time that CDCR had been served and that

15

the date to respond had passed. Defense counsel immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel,

16

Charles A. Piccuta, and explained this oversight. Further, defense counsel has no documents or

17

information concerning the events alleged in the complaint, such that she cannot adequately

18

respond to the complaint. Because CDCR’s failure to respond to the complaint was due to the

19

excusable neglect of its counsel, the Court should grant the requested extension.

20

Good cause exists to grant a four-day extension for Morelos to respond to the complaint.

21

On May 22, defense counsel signed the waiver of service on behalf of Morelos and informed

22

Plaintiff’s counsel that personal service on Morelos was not necessary. Based on the executed

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28
2
Stipulation and Order for Extension for Defendants CDCR and Morelos to Respond to First Amended Complaint
(1:14-cv-00179 AWI-SMS)

1

waiver, Morelos’s response is due June 27. To avoid filing separate answers on behalf of CDCR

2

and Morelos, the parties agree to a short extension such that Morelos’s answer will be due at the

3

same time as CDCR’s.

4
5

Dated: May 23, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

6

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

7
8
9

/s/ Diana Esquivel

10

DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants CDCR and
Morelos

11
12
13

Dated: May 23, 2014

PICCUTA LAW GROUP, LLP

14
/s/ Charles A. Piccuta

15

Charles A. Piccuta
Attorneys for Plaintiff

16
17
18

SA2014313309
31995032.doc

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and Order for Extension for Defendants CDCR and Morelos to Respond to First Amended Complaint
(1:14-cv-00179 AWI-SMS)

1

ORDER

2

Based on the parties’ stipulation and good cause and excusable neglect appearing, the

3

stipulation of the parties for an extension of time for Defendants CDCR and Morelos to respond

4

to the first amended complaint is granted.

5

Defendants’ response to the complaint is due on or before July 1, 2014.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 5/23/2014

/s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation and Order for Extension for Defendants CDCR and Morelos to Respond to First Amended Complaint
(1:14-cv-00179 AWI-SMS)