Cook v. City of California City et al

Filing 51

ORDER Extending Time for Defendants' Response to Second Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/5/2017. Responsive pleading due by 1/25/2017. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES ACE COOK, JR, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, et al. 15 16 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00429-DAD-JLT ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 50) 17 18 On December 29, 2016, counsel filed a stipulation to continue the scheduling conference 19 based upon the representation by the defendants that they intended to filed motions to dismiss or 20 motions to strike the second amended complaint. (Doc. 47 at 2-3) The second amended complaint 21 had been filed just the day before but, apparently, the defendants had sufficient time to review the 22 complaint and to determine that it suffered from one or more pleading defect. The Court granted the 23 continuance. (Doc. 49) 24 Now, exactly one week later, counsel filed another stipulation. (Doc. 50) In this one, they 25 seek to extend the deadline by which the defendants must file their responsive pleadings. Id. In 26 support of the extension, defense counsel indicate that due to the length of the second amended 27 complaint, they need “additional time to evaluate” the complaint. Id. The Court is at a loss to 28 understand how they knew on December 29th that the complaint was infirm but now need more 1 1 time to “evaluate” it. Furthermore, they offer no explanation for their piecemeal approach when 2 presenting their stipulations to this Court. 3 Nevertheless, the Court will grant the stipulation. However, counsel are advised that the 4 Court will not entertain any further stipulations that seek to delay responding to the complaint or to 5 delay scheduling this case. The scheduling conference will go forward on March 29 regardless of 6 whether the defendants file motions to dismiss or strike, regardless of whether these motions have 7 been heard and regardless of whether the motions have been decided. Thus, the defendants are 8 strongly urged to expedite their “evaluation” of the complaint and to respond immediately. 9 ORDER 10 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. 12 The stipulation (Doc. 50) is GRANTED. The defendants SHALL file their responsive pleading no later than January 25, 2017. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?