Foothill Church, et al. v. Rouillard
Filing
74
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/7/2017 ORDERING the Director's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and briefing and hearing on the Director's antic ipated motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, are set as follows: 12/6/2017: Motion to Dismiss or other response due; 1/5/2018: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss due; 1/26/2018: Reply re Motion Dismiss due; 2/9/2018: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss. The previous Order amending the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67 ) is MODIFIED as follows: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 9/14/2018; Discovery due by 8/31/2018; Dispositive Motions heard by 1/11/2019. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
SUSAN M. CARSON, State Bar No. 135875
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JOSHUA N. SONDHEIMER, State Bar No. 152000
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5615
Fax: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Joshua.Sondheimer@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant Michelle Rouillard, in her
official capacity as Director of the California
Department of Managed Health Care
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
FOOTHILL CHURCH, CALVARY
CHAPEL OF CHINO HILLS and
SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS CHURCH,
2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING
BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE
v.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE
MICHELLE ROUILLARD, in her official
capacity as Director of the California
Department of Managed Health Care,
Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. AND ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE SCHEDULES (2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB)
1
Defendant Michelle Rouillard, in her official capacity as Director of the California
2
Department of Managed Health Care (Director), and Plaintiffs Foothill Church, Calvary Chapel
3
Chino Hills, and Shepherd of the Hills Church, by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate
4
to and apply for an order extending the Director’s time to answer or otherwise respond to
5
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Second Amended
6
Complaint), setting a briefing and hearing schedule on the Director’s anticipated motion to
7
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and the modifying the previous Order amending the
8
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67).
9
10
11
In support of this application, the parties state that WHEREAS:
1.
The Court has granted the Director’s motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint
and a First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend (ECF Nos. 39 and 68);
12
2.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 23, 2017 (ECF 72);
13
3.
The Director anticipates moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,
14
and the parties wish to establish a mutually agreeable schedule for briefing and hearing on the
15
anticipated motion;
16
4.
The parties have made initial disclosures and served written discovery, but believe
17
that consistent with the Court’s previous orders continuing discovery and other pretrial deadlines
18
while the Director’s prior motions to dismiss remained pending (see ECF Nos. 63, 65, and 67), it
19
would be efficient and economical for both the Court and parties to further modify the Scheduling
20
Order so that service of responses to written discovery and other discovery need not proceed until
21
after the Court rules on the Director’s anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
22
Complaint;
23
5.
Consistent with the above and their prior stipulations, the parties agree that if the case
24
schedule is modified as requested below, the deadlines for responses to pending written discovery
25
may be extended until 90 days before the deadline for the close of discovery, and that they will
26
not pursue further discovery until after the Court’s ruling on the Director’s anticipated motion to
27
dismiss or 120 days before the close of discovery, whichever is earlier;
28
1
STIP. AND ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE SCHEDULES (2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB)
1
WHEREFORE, the parties STIPULATE that upon the Court’s order:
2
6.
The Director’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Second
3
Amended Complaint, and briefing and hearing on the Director’s anticipated motion to dismiss
4
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, shall be set as follows:
5
December 6, 2017: Motion to Dismiss or other response due;
6
January 5, 2018: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss due;
7
January 26, 2018: Reply re Motion Dismiss due;
8
February 9, 2018: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss (or other date set by the Court); and
9
that
10
7.
In light of the above, good cause exists to modify the case schedule to extend the time
11
for discovery and to modify other case deadlines respectively, and that the previous Order
12
amending the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67) shall be modified as follows:
13
Description
14
15
Existing Date
(See ECF No. 67)
New Date
March 2, 2018
August 31, 2018
Expert Disclosures
March 16, 2018
September 14, 2018
Supplemental Expert Disclosures
May 1, 2018
October 30, 2018
June 1, 2018
November 30, 2018
Hearing on Dispositive Motions
17
Discovery Cutoff
Completion of Expert Discovery
16
July 13, 2018
January 11, 2019
File Joint Pretrial Conference Statement
Final Pretrial Conference
Trial Briefs Due
Trial
Vacated. To be reset
after court resolves any
dispositive motions.
Vacated. To be reset after
court resolves any
dispositive motions.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
//
//
//
//
28
2
STIP. AND ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE SCHEDULES (2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB)
1
2
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
3
4
5
Dated: October 31, 2017
6
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
SUSAN M. CARSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
7
8
/s/ Joshua Sondheimer
JOSHUA N. SONDHEIMER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant Michelle Rouillard,
in her official capacity as Director of the
California Department of Managed Health
Care
9
10
11
12
13
Dated: October 31, 2017
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
14
15
/s/ Jeremiah Galus (as authorized on 10/31/17)
JEREMIAH GALUS (admitted pro hac vice)
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 444-0020
jgalus@ADFlegal.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Foothill Church, Calvary
Chapel Chino Hills, and Shepherd of the Hills
Church
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SF2015403026
41872600.docx
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIP. AND ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE SCHEDULES (2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB)
1
ORDER
2
Upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing:
3
1.
The Director’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Second
4
Amended Complaint, and briefing and hearing on the Director’s anticipated motion to dismiss
5
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, are set as follows:
6
December 6, 2017: Motion to Dismiss or other response due;
7
January 5, 2018: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss due;
8
January 26, 2018: Reply re Motion Dismiss due;
9
February 9, 2018: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss.
10
11
2.
The previous Order amending the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67) shall be modified
as follows:
12
Description
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Existing Date
(See ECF No. 67)
New Date
Discovery Cutoff
March 2, 2018
August 31, 2018
Expert Disclosures
March 16, 2018
September 14, 2018
Supplemental Expert Disclosures
May 1, 2018
October 30, 2018
Completion of Expert Discovery
June 1, 2018
November 30, 2018
Hearing on Dispositive Motions
July 13, 2018
January 11, 2019
File Joint Pretrial Conference Statement
Final Pretrial Conference
Trial Briefs Due
Trial Briefs Due
Vacated. To be reset
after court resolves any
dispositive motions.
Vacated. To be reset after
court resolves any
dispositive motions.
This amendment does not alter any other portions of the initial scheduling order (ECF
No. 51).
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
DATED: November 7, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
4
STIP. AND ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE SCHEDULES (2:15-CV-02165-KJM-EFB)
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?