Grogan v. Beale Aero Club et al
Filing
22
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/15/2015 CONTINUING the Pretrial Scheduling Conference to 10/26/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; ORDERING that a joint status report be filed fourteen days prior the the hearing. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney
STEVEN A. KIRSCH
steven.kirsch@usdoj.gov
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 14271
Washington, DC 20044-4271
Phone: (202) 616-4048
Fax: (202) 616-4159
Attorneys for Defendants United States of
America and Beale Aero Club
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
James M. Grogan,
No. 2:15-CV-00562-GEB-KJN
15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
18
19
Beale Aero Club, John Henry; United
States of America; and DOES 1-30,
Defendants.
SECOND STIPULATION and
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE
INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND FILING OF JOINT STATUS
REPORT
20
21
22
23
This is a personal injury action against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort
24
Claims Act (“FTCA”) and John Henry, an individual Defendant who has not appeared in this
25
action. The action was initiated in state court on January 14, 2015. The United States removed
26
the action to this Court on March 12, 2015. On April 10, 2015, the United States filed a Motion
27
to Dismiss arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the FTCA component of the case
28
SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND FILING OF JOINT STATUS REPORT
1
1
because Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. The motion is fully
2
briefed and was submitted without argument pursuant to the Court’s May 5, 2015 minute order.
3
In an Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference dated March 12, 2015, the
4
Court set a pretrial scheduling conference for June 22, 2015, and also required the parties to
5
6
confer and develop a proposed discovery plan by June 1, 2015 and submit a Joint Status Report
7
by June 8, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to
8
Continue the Initial Scheduling Conference and Filing of Joint Status Report due to the pendency
9
of a dispositive motion with respect to the United States. On June 1, 2015, the Court acted upon
10
11
that Stipulation by resetting the pretrial scheduling conference for August 3, 2015, and
establishing July 20, 2015 as the deadline for filing a Joint Status Report.
12
The parties seek to continue the deadlines for the Joint Status Report and pretrial
13
14
scheduling conference once more. Given the dispositive nature of the pending motion with
15
respect to the United States, the parties remain in agreement that it would be more efficient for
16
the Court to resolve the Motion to Dismiss before setting a schedule or engaging in other
17
proceedings, and that the initial scheduling conference and development and filing of the Joint
18
19
Status Report should be continued until after such resolution. Therefore, the undersigned parties
stipulate to continue the initial scheduling conference to a date approximately 21 days after the
20
21
22
Motion to Dismiss is resolved, or as otherwise set by the Court, with the Joint Status Report due
fourteen days before the new date of the initial scheduling conference.1
23
24
25
26
1
27
28
Counsel for the United States, Steven A. Kirsch, respectfully requests that Monday, September 14, 2015 not be
chosen as the new date of the initial scheduling conference because the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah falls on
that day.
SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND FILING OF JOINT STATUS REPORT
2
1
2
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: July 10, 2015
3
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
4
5
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney
6
/s/ Steven A. Kirsch
STEVEN A. KIRSCH
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 14271
Washington, DC 20044-4271
Phone: (202) 616-4048
Fax: (202) 616-4159
steven.kirsch@usdoj.gov
7
8
9
10
11
12
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DATED: July 10, 2015
13
14
15
16
17
18
/s/ Bradley W. Wahrlich (authorized on 7/10/2015)
Anthony S. Petru, Esq., State Bar No. 91399
Kristoffer S. Mayfield, Esq., State Bar No. 241093
Bradley W. Wahrlich, Esq., State Bar No. 261762
HILDEBRAND, McLEOD & NELSON, LLP
Westlake Building
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Fourth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612 -2006
Phone: (800) 447-7500
Fax: (510) 465-7023
warlich@hmnlaw.com
19
20
21
The pretrial scheduling conference is rescheduled for October 26, 2015, at 9:00
22
a.m. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the hearing.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: July 15, 2015
25
26
27
28
SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND FILING OF JOINT STATUS REPORT
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Second Stipulation and
[Proposed] Order to Continue Initial Status Conference and Joint Scheduling Report was
sent via U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 10th day of July, 2015, to the following
counsel of record and party:
6
7
8
9
10
Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
Kristoffer S. Mayfield, Esq.
Bradley W. Wahrlich, Esq.
HILDEBRAND, McLEOD & NELSON, LLP
Westlake Building
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Fourth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612 -2006
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
James M. Grogan
12
John Henry
5834 Park Avenue
Marysville, CA 95901
13
14
15
/s/ Steven A. Kirsch
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND FILING OF JOINT STATUS REPORT
4
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?