Smith v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 5/12/2015 ORDERING that the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to 6/8/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. A further joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Nathaniel Smith,

8

11
12
13
14

2:15-cv-00363-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,

9
10

No.

v.
City of Stockton; Officer
Mayer, Officer Robin
Harrison, Officer Michael
Perez, and former Chief of
Police Blair Ulring, in
their individual capacities;
and Chief of Police Eric
Jones, in his official
capacity,

15

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS
(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff states in the Joint Status Report (“JSR”)

17
18

filed May 4, 2015, as follows:

19

Plaintiff
anticipates
amending
the
complaint
to
add
Chief
Jones
in
his
individual capacity (currently named only in
his official capacity), and the parties are
currently meeting and conferring regarding
former Chief Ulring’s status in the case,
which
may
result
in
amendment
to
the
pleadings. The parties propose that such
amendment take place after the Court reaches
a decision regarding the pending motion to
dismiss.1

20
21
22
23
24
25

(JSR 2:4-8, ECF No. 17.)

26
27
1

28

The referenced dismissal motion was referred to the bankruptcy court
under 28 U.S.C. ' 157(a) on May 6, 2015. (See ECF No. 18.)

1

1

These

statements

fail

to

comply

with

Plaintiff’s

2

obligation under Rule 16 to provide meaningful information on

3

when the referenced amendments would be sought.

4

Parties
anticipating
possible
amendments. . . have an unflagging obligation
to alert the Rule 16 scheduling judge of the
. . . timing of such anticipated amendments
in their status reports so that the judge can
consider whether such amendments may properly
be sought solely under the Rule 15(a)
standard, and whether structuring discovery
pertinent to the parties’ decision whether to
amend is feasible.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)

11

(internal quotation marks omitted).

12

Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference

13

set for May 18, 2015, is continued to June 8, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

14

A

15

fourteen

16

Plaintiff shall address the anticipated timing of the referenced

17

amendments. Plaintiff shall also address in the further joint

18

status

19

Defendant Mayer, who has not yet appeared in this action.

further

20
21

joint

(14)

report

status

days

his

report

prior

efforts

to

shall

the

to

Status

prosecute

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

be

May 12, 2015

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

filed

no

later

Conference,

this

in

action

than
which

against