Johana Martinez v. Enderton et al

Filing 52

STIPULATION and ORDER to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadlines; Pretrial Conference currently set for 1/30/2019 is moved to 2/6/2019 at 08:15 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/31/2018. (Kusamura, W)

1

5

McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
JEFFREY J. LODGE
Assistant United States Attorney
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

Attorneys for the United States

2
3
4

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOHANA MARTINEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

14

Defendant.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01556 LJO-SKO
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE;
ORDER
(Doc. 51)

17
18

Plaintiff Johana Martinez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant United States (“Defendant”),

19

(collectively “the parties”), stipulate, by and through their undersigned counsel, and request that the

20

time to file dispositive motions should be extended for two weeks from the existing deadline of

21

October 29, 2018, to November 12, 2018.

22

The timing of recent discovery disputes and the obligations regarding other cases has made it

23

difficult for the United States to finalize its summary judgment motion within existing deadline. The

24

United States requests that the deadline for filing dispositive motions, as well as the corresponding

25

deadlines for the opposition, reply, and hearing, be extended for approximately two weeks. The

26

United States did timely provide the Plaintiff with a proposed joint statement of undisputed facts.

27

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that the deadline for filing dispositive motions, as

28
29
30

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE;
ORDER

1

1

well as the corresponding deadlines for the opposition, reply, and hearing, be extended for

2

approximately two weeks. This is not a material alteration of the scheduling order and no other

3

adjustments to the schedule or the order are contemplated. The parties request the court to endorse

4

this stipulation by way of formal order.
Respectfully submitted,

5
6

Dated: October 30, 2018

McGREGOR W. SCOTT
Acting United States Attorney

7
8

By:

9
10

/s/Jeffrey J. Lodge
JEFFREY J. LODGE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for the United States

11
12

Dated: October 30, 2018

ROBINS CLOUD LLP

13

(As authorized 10/30/18)

14

/s/Ari Friedman
Ari Friedman
Attorneys for Plaintiff

15

ORDER

16
17

Based in part on the parties’ above-stipulation (Doc. 51), and with good cause shown, the Court
18
hereby ORDERS that case schedule (Doc. 35 and 49) is modified as follows:
19

Event

Prior Date

Continued Date

20

Dispositive Motion Filing

October 29, 2018

November 12, 2018

21

Opposition to Dispositive Motion
Filing:
Reply in Support of Dispositive
Motion Filing
Dispositive Motion Hearing

November 23, 2018

December 7, 2018

November 30, 2018

December 14, 2018

December 5, 2018

December 19, 2018

Pretrial Conference

January 30, 2019, at 8:15
am

February 6, 2019, at 8:15
am1

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The pretrial conference has been adjusted to allow the Court adequate time to rule on dispositive motions.

28
29
30

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE;
ORDER

2

1

The trial date remains set for March 26, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.

2

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Enlarge the Dispositive Motion

3

Deadline (Doc. 50) is DENIED as MOOT.2

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 31, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

The Court observes that Defendant’s ex parte motion seeking to enlarge the dispositive motion deadline was filed on the
day the deadline expired. Requests for extension are governed by Rule 144 of the Local Rules of the United States District
Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”). Local Rule 144(d) explains that “[r]equests for Court-approved
extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” In
addition, the above-stipulation was filed after the expiration of the dispositive motion deadline. The Court may extend time
to act after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the abovestipulation demonstrates good cause to support the request for extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such
excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—to justify the untimeliness of the request. Notwithstanding this
deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by her agreement to the extension of time
after the deadline) and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing
that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court
will grant the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are hereby admonished that any future requests for extensions of time
shall be brought in advance of the required filing date and be supported by good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

28
29
30

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE;
ORDER

3