Ryan v. City Of Roseville, et al

Filing 34

ORDER MODIFYING INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/15/2018 All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than 2/23/19; The initial disclosures of Defendant UDF, required by Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules, shall be made not later than fourteen (14) days after this Court has issued its ruling on UDF pending Motion to Dismiss.(Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
WILLIAM R. WARNE (Bar No. 141280)
AVALON J. FITZGERALD (Bar No. 288167)
MICHAEL W. REINING (Bar No. 305566)
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-4731
Telephone:
916.444.1000
Facsimile:
916.444.2100
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

12

RICHARD J. RYAN,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
CITY OF ROSEVILL, a municipal
corporation; ROSEVILLE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a
non-profit public benefit corporation;
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION, a foreign corporation;
CHRIS ROBLES, an individual, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Case No. 2:17-cv-01453-MCE-DB
DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION’S
OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER AND EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM
SCHEDULE; ORDER
Date:
Judge:

April 30, 2018
Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Defendants.

20
21
22

As permitted by the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order and pursuant to Federal Rule

23

of Civil Procedure 16, Defendant University Development Foundation (“UDF”) hereby objects to

24

the schedule set forth in the Court’s July 13, 2017, Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, and requests

25

ex parte relief from that schedule, as follows:
1.

26
27

Plaintiff Richard J. Ryan (“Ryan”) filed the original complaint in this action on

July 12, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
2.

28

The Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on July 13, 2017. (ECF
1

1517689.2

OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULE & EX PARTE APPLICATION

1

No. 4.)

2

3.

Pursuant to that Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Ryan was

3

required to serve UDF within 90 days of filing his original complaint. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Thus,

4

Ryan was required to serve UDF by October 10, 2017.

5
6

4.

On August 14, 2017, Ryan filed a first amended complaint, which is the operative

complaint in this action. (ECF No. 6.)

7

5.

Ryan served the City of Roseville on February 23, 2018.

8

6.

Ryan did not serve UDF until March 29, 2018, more than 260 days after Ryan

9

filed his initial complaint. (ECF No. 14.)

10

7.

On April 19, 2018, UDF filed a motion to dismiss Ryan’s only claim for relief

against UDF, which Ryan styled as a “cause of action.” Additionally, in light of the clarity of law

12
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

11

regarding the Surplus Land Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 54222, which serves as the basis of Ryan’s

13

sole claim against UDF, UDF also requested that the Court dismiss that cause of action with

14

prejudice. (ECF No. 23.) That motion is set for hearing on May 17, 2018.

15

8.

The other defendants in this action have also filed motions to dismiss and motions

16

to strike, seeking dismissal of Ryan’s claims against them with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 7, 9, 19.)

17

Accordingly, these motions may obviate the need for discovery in this case entirely, or

18

substantially reduce the scope of discovery that needs to be conducted.

19
20

9.

Pursuant to the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, the following schedule is

currently in effect:

21

a.

Rule 26(f) conference: April 24, 2018

22

b.

Initial disclosures: May 8, 2018

23

c.

Non-expert discovery: July 12, 2018;

24

d.

Expert discovery: September 10, 2018;

25

e.

Dispositive motions: January 8, 2019.

26

10.

On April 24, 2018, UDF participated in the Rule 26(f) conference call. During

27

that conference, the parties discussed the possibility of staying initial disclosures until the Court

28

had ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. In response, Ryan refused to stipulate to continuing
2
1517689.2

OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULE & EX PARTE APPLICATION

1

the date for such disclosures. UDF is therefore seeking relief from the Court’s order as soon as is

2

practicable following the parties’ conference regarding the discovery schedule in this case.

3

11.

Because Ryan did not serve UDF until well after the deadline for him to do so, the

dates set by the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order give the parties only 66 days between the date of

5

initial disclosures (which is the first date that discovery may be propounded pursuant to Rule 26)

6

and the date that non-expert discovery closes. This is not an adequate amount of time for the

7

parties to conduct discovery in this case. Ryan’s failure to timely serve UDF thus presents an

8

extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from the Scheduling Order. Moreover, in light of

9

the pending motions to dismiss, the parties do not presently know which issues, if any, warrant

10

the commencement of discovery, and will not know until they receive the Court’s rulings on the

11

pending motions. Good cause therefore exists to extend the deadlines for initial disclosures and

12
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

4

to modify the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

13

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609–10 (9th Cir. 1992).

14
15

12.

requests that the Court enter an order focused upon:

16
17

Accordingly, UDF objects to the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order1 and

a.

Staying the deadline for UDF to serve its initial disclosures until 14 days

after the Court rules on UDF’s motion to dismiss;

18

b.

Scheduling all other discovery-related deadlines in this case from February

19

23, 2018 (the date that the City of Roseville was served), rather than from July 12, 2017 (the date

20

the initial complaint was filed).2

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

UDF’s objection to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order is timely. The Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling
Order requires that the parties object to the Order within 60 days of service on all Defendants. (ECF No. 4
at 7.)
2
This date aligns with the schedule requested in the ex parte application filed by Defendants City of
Roseville and Chris Robles. (ECF No. 25.)

3

1517689.2

OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULE & EX PARTE APPLICATION

1

DATED: April 30, 2018

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

2
3

By: /s/ William R. Warne
WILLIAM R. WARNE
AVALON J. FITZGERALD
MICHAEL W. REINING
Attorney for Defendant
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1517689.2

OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULE & EX PARTE APPLICATION

1

ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, Defendant University Development Foundation’s objection to the

3

Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order and Ex Parte Application for Relief from the Schedule is hereby

4

GRANTED. The Pretrial Scheduling Order is modified as follows:

5

1.

The initial disclosures of Defendant UDF, required by Rule 26(c) of the

6

Federal Rules, shall be made not later than fourteen (14) days after this Court has issued its ruling

7

on UDF’s pending Motion to Dismiss;

8
9

2.

February 23, 2018, with non-expert discovery to be completed no later than February 23, 2019.

10
11

All other discovery deadlines in this case shall be calendared from

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 15, 2018

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1517689.2

OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULE & EX PARTE APPLICATION