Kevin Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART #12 Application for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2020. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S FIRST APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE Defendant. 13 14 Case No.: 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT (Doc. 12) v. WALMART INC., 15 16 The defendant moves the Court for a 19-day extension of time to respond to the First Amended 17 18 Complaint. (Doc. 12) The defendant cites the need to review the complaint and to meet and confer with 19 opposing counsel related to an anticipated motion to dismiss, in hopes of resolving the issues without 20 need for a formal motion. Id. at 2. The plaintiff opposes the request unless the scheduling conference goes forward as currently set 21 22 on December 18, 2020. (Doc. 13) The plaintiff offers no explanation for this position. He offers no 23 argument that requiring the Court to expend extremely limited judicial resources in managing the case 24 while the motion to dismiss is pending—and a decision on a motion like this can take months to issue 1- 25 -all the while expending other judicial resources to determine whether the case will proceed beyond the 26 27 1 Presumably counsel is aware that this Court is in a state of judicial crisis. The formal declaration of this crisis is months old, though the actual crisis has existed for years. 28 1 1 pleading stage. He fails to demonstrate any prejudice to him that the 19-day extension would impose 2 and seems to ignore that it was his decision to amend his complaint that gave rise to the delay now at 3 issue. 2 Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 13) to the extension request is OVERRULED; 5 2. The defendant’s request for the extension of time (Doc. 12) is GRANTED IN PART. 6 The responsive pleading SHALL be filed no later than December 8, 2020. The Court declines to set a 7 briefing on a motion that has not been filed and, in fact, as to which there is no certainty will be filed. 8 If a motion to dismiss is filed, the normal rules related to opposing and replying to the opposition 9 remain in place. 3 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 November 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Because the plaintiff refused to stipulate to the extension, the Court was required to address his unsupported objections despite the significant number of other cases also needing urgent attention. In future, counsel SHALL extend courtesy to their opponent unless doing so would prejudice the client. 3 Moreover, because the plaintiff is concerned about delay, the proposed briefing scheduling, which inflates the normal time periods, is inconsistent with this concern. 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?