Ryan v. City Of Roseville, et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/14/2018 GRANTING 53 Request/Motion for Extension of Time. The initial disclosures of Defendant University Development Foundation, if required, shall be made no later than 14 days after University Development Foundation has filed an answer. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
WILLIAM R. WARNE (Bar No. 141280)
ANNIE S. AMARAL (Bar No. 238189)
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

8
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

Case No. 2:17-cv-01453-MCE-DB

v.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, 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,

REQUEST BY DEFENDANT
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
TO SUBMIT INITIAL DISCLOSURES;
ORDER
Judge:

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

19
Defendants.
20
21
Defendant University Development Foundation (“UDF”) hereby requests that the deadline

22
23

for UDF to serve its initial disclosures be continued for good cause, as follows:
1.

24

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

25

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

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
1517689.2

UDF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULE; ORDER

1
2

2.

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

3.

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

No. 4.)

3
4

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

5

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

6

4.

On August 14, 2017, Ryan filed a first amended complaint. (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,” and UDF requested that the Court dismiss

12
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

11

that cause of action with prejudice. (ECF No. 23.)

13
14

8.

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

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

15

9.

Based on Ryan’s delay in effectuating service, and the defendants’ requests that

16

the matter be dismissed with prejudice, the Court ordered that defendants were not required to

17

serve their initial disclosures until fourteen (14) days after the Court ruled on the collective

18

motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.)

19

10.

On September 26, 2018, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in

20

part defendants’ motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 36.) With respect to the only cause of action

21

Ryan had asserted against UDF, the Court dismissed this cause of action without leave to amend

22

for lack of jurisdiction (but without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court). (ECF No.

23

36 at 7:4-8.) The Court granted Ryan leave to amend other causes of action he had previously

24

asserted. (Id. at 8:2-9.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
1517689.2

UDF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULE; ORDER

1

11.

On October 16, 2018, Ryan filed his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 42.)

2

He listed UDF as a defendant in the caption and a party in the “parties” section, but did not

3

identify UDF as a defendant against whom any claims for relief were asserted, and did not

4

identify any wrongdoing by UDF. Given the procedural background, and these omissions in

5

Ryan’s second amended complaint, UDF did not believe that any of the claims for relief were

6

alleged against UDF. UDF believed that the isolated references to UDF in the second amended

7

complaint were inadvertent remnants from the prior complaint, a belief that was bolstered by the

8

fact that where UDF was referenced, its name was not capitalized as were the other party names.

9

12.

Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, on October 30, 2018, counsel for UDF

contacted counsel for Ryan by telephone to determine whether Ryan intended to assert any of the

11

remaining claims against UDF. Counsel for Ryan stated that in fact Ryan had intended to assert

12
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

10

against UDF the Second Claim for Relief for Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due

13

Process Clause, even though Ryan had not previously named UDF as a defendant to this claim.

14

(See ECF No. 6 at 6:4-5.)

15

13.

In order to allow the parties time to meet and confer about the ambiguous legal

16

theory against UDF, Ryan’s counsel agreed to extend by one week UDF’s deadline to respond to

17

the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 48.)

18

14.

Ryan’s counsel never responded to UDF’s counsel’s efforts to meet and confer.

19

Thus, on November 6, 2018, UDF filed a motion to dismiss Ryan’s second amended complaint.

20

Based on the number of amendments Ryan has already made, and the procedural history, UDF

21

seeks dismissal without leave to amend. (ECF No. 51.)

22

15.

Given the uncertain status of the pleadings, and the fact that UDF understandably

23

believed it no longer had a role in the current action, and the fact that UDF seeks dismissal

24

without leave to amend of the only claim that Ryan is apparently alleging against UDF, UDF now

25

seeks an order from the Court confirming that, to the extent UDF remains a defendant in this

26

action and must serve initial disclosures as required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure, any such disclosures shall be served no later than fourteen (14) days after UDF files an

28

answer to Ryan’s operative complaint.
3
1517689.2

UDF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULE; ORDER

1
2

16.

This extension is consistent with the extensions recently sought by the other

defendants in this action and ordered by the Court. (See ECF No. 41.)

3
4

DATED: November 8, 2018

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

5
By: /s/ William R. Warne
WILLIAM R. WARNE
ANNIE S. AMARAL
MICHAEL W. REINING
Attorney for Defendant
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION

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

UDF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULE; ORDER

1

ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, the Court orders that the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order

3

(“PTSO”) (ECF No. 4), as modified on May 15, 2018 (ECF No. 33), and October 1, 2018 (ECF

4

No. 38), and October 16, 2018 (ECF No. 41), in civil action number 2:17-cv-1453-MCE-DB

5

titled Richard J. Ryan v. City of Roseville, et al., be amended to reflect the following change:
Defendant University Development Foundation’s (“UDF”) Request/Motion for Extension

6
7

of Time (ECF No. 53) to extend the deadline to provide initial disclosures is GRANTED. The

8

initial disclosures of UDF, if required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall be

9

made no later than fourteen (14) days after UDF has filed an answer to Ryan’s operative

10

complaint.

11
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2018

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

UDF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULE; ORDER