Rhodehouse v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 09/29/17 ORDERING that all dates are EXTENDED by 60 days as follows: all dispositive motions shall be filed by 04/10/18 and heard 05/18/18 at 1:30 p.m. All discovery shall be completed by 02/20/18; Expert witness disclosures due by 12/18/17 with any supplemental disclosures due 01/08/18; Final Pretrial Conference set for 06/15/18 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez and Jury Trial set for 07/23/18 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MICHAEL COGAN (SBN: 65479) Attorney at Law Attorneys for Plaintiff DEREK RHODEHOUSE AMIR NASSIHI (SBN: 235936) anassihi@shb.com SANDRA L. SHELDON (SBN: 271555) ssheldon@shb.com SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2700 San Francisco, California 94104-2828 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 DEREK RHODEHOUSE, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING PENDING DATES BY 60 DAYS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 TO 20, Inclusive, Complaint Filed: January 4, 2015 1st Amended Complaint Filed: July 5, 2016 2nd Amended Complaint Filed: December 21, 2016 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1. On August 10, 2016, Defendant Ford Motor Company removed this action from the Superior Court of California for the County of Trinity to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 2. On December 5, 2016, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Ford’s motion to dismiss the action. 3. On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. 4. On January 4, 2017, the Court issued its Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order, setting various discovery deadlines and trial for May 21, 2018. 28 1 389832 v1 Stipulation Extending Pending Dates by 60 Days Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK 1 5. The parties have engaged in discovery cooperatively. Plaintiff has responded to 2 special interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant has deposed Plaintiff, who was a 3 passenger in the vehicle, Mark Suda, the driver of the vehicle, Kyle Martin, a friend of plaintiff, and 4 Tiffany Cato, his relationship. Ford will depose the California Highway Patrol officer who 5 responded to the incident next week. Plaintiff has served requests for admission, special 6 interrogatories, and two sets of requests for production to which responses are being prepared. The 7 parties have also agreed to a medical examination of Plaintiff without the necessity of motion. 8 Plaintiff has also noticed the depositions of two named Ford witnesses. After these depositions, 9 Plaintiff and Ford will meet and confer whether a general Ford deponent will also be noticed. 10 6. The main reason for the request for this amendment is based upon limitations related 11 by Plaintiff’s counsel. Gene Tucker, who had worked for Plaintiff’s attorney approximately 14 years, 12 unexpectedly died this past May. The last two months before his death were disruptive as he began 13 to have difficulty, but the terminal nature of his illness was not known. Plaintiff’s counsel relates that 14 Mr. Tucker’s unexpected death was troubling and difficult for both the professional and personal 15 void it created. Plaintiff’s counsel returned early out-of-town upon learning of Mr. Tucker’s death 16 and relates that he was required to step in and handle a number of personal issues regarding Mr. 17 Tucker. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel says he had to address the legal matters for which Mr. Tucker 18 had been responsible. Another issue for Plaintiff’s counsel is Plaintiff’s research assistant of over 22 19 years has retired recently (although he might possibly come back). This was a development which 20 occurred after Mr. Tucker’s death. These events have contributed to significantly limiting the time 21 and ability of Plaintiff’s counsel to focus on this case. Counsel for Plaintiff has no other attorney or 22 research assistant working for him at the moment and is in the process of advertising for an attorney 23 to assist him with his practice. 24 7. As such, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that this Court consider 25 the foregoing as good cause to amend the existing Pre-Trial Scheduling Order to continue all 26 pending dates by 60 days, to the following: 27 28 2 389832 v1 Stipulation Extending Pending Dates by 60 Days Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK 1 a. 2 The parties shall make expert witness disclosures under Fed R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by December 18, 2017; 3 b. 4 Supplemental disclosure and disclosure of any rebuttal experts under Fed R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c) shall be made by January 8, 2018; 5 c. All discovery shall be completed by February 20, 2018; 6 d. All dispositive motions shall be filed by April 10, 2018; 7 e. Hearing on such dispositive motions shall be on May 8, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. or 8 as soon thereafter as this Court will permit; 9 f. The final pre-trial conference be set for June 15, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.; and 10 g. Jury trial in this matter be set for July 23, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon 11 thereafter as this Court will permit. 12 13 Dated: September 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 14 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL COGAN 15 By: /s/ Michael Cogan (as authorized 9/28/17) Michael Cogan 16 Attorney for Plaintiff DEREK RHODEHOUSE 17 18 19 Dated: September 28, 2017 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 20 By: /s/ Sandra L. Sheldon Amir Nassihi Sandra L. Sheldon 21 22 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY 23 24 Pursuant to Stipulation, it is so ordered as modified by the Court. 25 26 DATED: 9/29/2017 27 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ United States District Court Judge 28 3 389832 v1 Stipulation Extending Pending Dates by 60 Days Case No. 2:16-cv-01892-JAM-CMK

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?