Moncrief v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al

Filing 52

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/25/14 ordering that the time for plaintiff to file a motion to amend and to file an amended complaint is extended to 11/07/14. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4

Kenneth N. Frucht (SBN 178881)
Frederick J. Geonetta (SBN 114824)
GEONETTA & FRUCHT, LLP
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Philip Moncrief

7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

JOHN PHILIP MONCRIEF,

14

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16
17
18
19

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
RANDY GROUNDS, GARY
SWARTHOUT, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

20
21

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

CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-00414 MCE AC P

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED
ORDER] FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND AND
TO AMEND COMPLAINT (L. Rule 144;
FRCP 6)

STIPULATION

22

On June 24, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to extend the time

23

for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint (Docket #49). The purpose of the extension was to

24

allow Plaintiff to complete discovery into the names of Doe defendants. Since that time,

25

Defendants’ counsel has been attempting, in response to Plaintiff’s FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition

26

notice, to identify the person(s) most knowledgeable about decisions that were made related

27

to the housing of Plaintiff on the date alleges he was injured. Defendants’ counsel is still in

28

the process of identifying the person(s) most knowledgeable. Plaintiff is unable to amend the
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
MONCRIEF v. CDCR
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414

1

complaint until such identification has been made and the deposition(s) have been taken. The

2

parties anticipate that the person(s) most knowledgeable can be identified, and the

3

deposition(s) taken by October 17, 2014.

4

Therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 144, and FRCP 6, Plaintiff John Moncrief, by

5

and through his attorney of record, Kenneth Frucht of the Geonetta & Frucht, LLP law firm,

6

and Defendants Grounds, Swarthout, and CDRC, by and through their attorney of record

7

Kelli M. Hammond, hereby stipulate that the time for Plaintiff to file a motion to amend and

8

to file an amended complaint be extended from August 25, 2014, as set forth in the Court’s

9

June 25, 2014 Order (Docket #50) to November 7, 2014. The purpose of the extension is to

10

allow Plaintiff to take sufficient discovery to be able to identify Doe defendants so that he can

11

file an amended complaint substituting in the named defendants for the individual defendants.

12

SO STIPULATED.

13
14
15

Dated: August 25, 14

GEONETTA & FRUCHT, LLP

16

By:

17
18

/s/
Kenneth Frucht
KENNETH FRUCHT
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21

Dated: August 25, 14

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

22

By:

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
MONCRIEF v. CDCR
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414

/s/
Kelli M. Hammond
KELLI M. HAMMOND
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

1

IT IS SO ORDERED

2
3
4
5 DATED: August 25, 2014
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
MONCRIEF v. CDCR
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, CASE NO. 12-0414