Goh v. The Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al.

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint and to Continue Initial Scheduling Conference. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be due on or before 9/12/2014. The Scheduling Conference currentl y set for 8/26/2014, is CONTINUED to 12/9/2014, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto, and will be reset if necessary to the extent any motion to dismiss remains pending at that time. The parties' joint scheduling report shall be filed by no later than 12/2/2014. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/20/2014. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
Attorneys for Defendants
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT GOH, M.D.,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO
STUIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE
INTIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, et al..
Defendants

15
16

Plaintiff served his Complaint in this matter on April 9, 2014. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

17

Civil Procedure 4(i), the United States’ responsive pleading was originally due on June 9, 2014.

18

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties stipulated and agreed to extend the response date to pursue

19

settlement, and again to permit Plaintiff to amend his Complaint. The Court granted each such

20

request, setting a response date for 14-days after Plaintiff amended his complaint. [Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, &

21

12]. The Court also continued the scheduling conference to August 26, 2014 with a joint status report

22

due seven days prior. [Dkt. No. 8.] Plaintiff amended his Complaint on August 14, 2014, but added

23

two individual defendants sued in their official capacities. Under Rule 4(i), their responses would be

24

due 60-days from service of process; by contrast, the agency-defendants’ responses would be due

25

August 28 under the Court’s order. [Dkt. No. 12].

26

All claims in this matter revolve around a common set of facts and circumstances, and both

27

the agency and individual defendants’ defenses will be similar. Thus, it would be inefficient to have

28

the agency defendants respond on one date and the individual defendants respond weeks later. Thus,
Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Complaint and Continue Scheduling Conference.

1

1

the parties hereby stipulate that all Defendants shall respond on or before September 12, 2014, at

2

which time Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss.

3

In light of the above, the parties also stipulate to continue the initial scheduling conference.

4

In Defendants’ view, this is a record case under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) which

5

should involve no discovery, and simply a review to determine whether the Air Force’s final action

6

was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Plaintiff has chosen to file

7

other actions, however, naming the Veterans’ Administration as a defendant, and attempting to state

8

claims under the Constitution against individual federal officers and employees. Thus, it will be

9

difficult to determine the appropriate schedule for the case until after the motion to dismiss is

10

decided. If all that is left is an APA claim, then the parties can proceed to assemble and lodge the

11

record, and brief the merits. If other claims remain, however, discovery might be appropriate (or

12

necessary) to determine issues such as qualified immunity. Therefore, the parties stipulate to

13

continue the status conference to a date after the Court issues the order on the forthcoming motion to

14

dismiss.

15

Respectfully submitted,

16

DATED: August 18, 2014
By:

17
18
19

DATED: August 18, 2014

22

__

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

20
21

/s/ Nicholas Jurkowitz (auth. 08/18/2014)
Nicholas Jurkowitz
Attorney for Plaintiff

By:

/s/ Gregory T. Broderick (auth. 08/18/2014)
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney

23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Complaint and Continue Scheduling Conference.

2

ORDER

1
2

The parties having stipulated, and good cause appearing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

12, 2014;

4
5

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be due on or before September

2.

The initial scheduling conference is CONTINUED to December 9, 2014, at 10:30

6

a.m. and will be reset if necessary to the extent any motion to dismiss remains

7

pending at that time; and

8

3.

The parties' joint scheduling report shall be filed by no later than December 2, 2014.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 20, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Complaint and Continue Scheduling Conference.

3