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.)

Download PDF
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?