Boykin v. Potter et al

Filing 54

ORDER re 52 Stipulation, filed by Jesse J. Boykin, Patrick Donahoe. MOTION for Leave to File FIRST AMENDED ANSWER. Responses due by 8/22/2011. Replies due by 8/29/2011. Motion Hearing set for 9/20/2011 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 8/11/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2011) Modified on 8/12/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF).

1
2

Jesse J. Boykin
204 Tuscany Place
Sonoma, CA 95476
Telephone: [phone]

3
Plaintiff In pro per
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612)
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)
Chief, Civil Division
NEILL T. TSENG (CSBN 220348)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRICK DONAHOE

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

OAKLAND DIVISION

16
JESSE J. BOYKIN,
17
Plaintiff,
18
v.
19
20
21
22

PATRICK DONAHOE, United States
Postmaster General,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-2517 SBA
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
SHORTENED TIME ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

23

Subject to the approval of this Court, and pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2(a), the parties hereby

24

stipulate to shorten the time for hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended

25

Answer (the “Motion”). The Motion is noticed for hearing on December 13, 2011, which was

26

the earliest available hearing date for civil cases ending with an odd number, according to Judge

27

Armstrong’s scheduling information on the USDC website. That is after the last date for hearing

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SHORTENED TIME ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
C 10-2517 SBA

1

motions in this case, November 8, 2011, and is two weeks before pretrial preparation is due on

2

December 27, 2011. (Doc. #32.)

3

Fact discovery in this case ends on September 7, 2011. Id. Defendant anticipates filing a

4

motion for summary judgment as soon as possible after the close of fact discovery. Based on the

5

current hearing date of December 13, 2011, defendant would not have a ruling on the Motion by

6

the time it files its motion for summary judgment, nor would plaintiff have a ruling on the

7

Motion by the time his opposition memo was due. Therefore, it could be inefficient for the

8

parties and the Court because the summary judgment papers could include unnecessary

9

discussion of the affirmative defenses at issue in the Motion. Additionally, the current hearing

10

date of December 13, 2011, could complicate the parties’ pretrial preparation due two weeks

11

later, on December 27, 2011, because the parties would not know before the hearing whether

12

defendant would be permitted to amend its answer and, accordingly, what affirmative defenses

13

could be asserted at trial.

14

Accordingly, the parties stipulate to have the Motion heard on shortened time. The

15

parties stipulate and request that the hearing date for the Motion be set for September 13, 2011,

16

at 1:00 p.m. That hearing date would benefit the parties and the Court by being early enough so

17

that the parties could have a ruling before defendant files its motion for summary judgment and

18

plaintiff files his opposition thereto, and therefore the parties would know what arguments to

19

include or not include for the Court’s consideration. It would also benefit the parties’ pretrial

20

preparation by allowing for an earlier determination of what affirmative defenses could be

21

asserted at trial.

22

There have been no previous time modifications in this case of any of the dates set in the

23

Order for Pretrial Preparation (Doc. #32). There were previous time modifications for the initial

24

case management conference and the mediation deadline as follows:

25

*

On plaintiff’s motion (and before a summons had been issued for defendant), the

26

Court on October 4, 2010, continued the date of the initial case management

27

conference. (Doc. #13.)

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SHORTENED TIME ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
2
C 10-2517 SBA

1

*

the date of the initial case management conference. (Doc. #15.)

2
3
4
5

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court on December 13, 2010, continued

*

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court on May 31, 2011, extended the
mediation deadline. (Doc. #38.)

By this stipulation and request to change the hearing date for the Motion, the parties do

6

not request to, and do not anticipate that this requested time modification would, change any

7

deadline set forth in the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation (Doc. #32). The parties believe

8

that the requested time modification would enable the parties to proceed more efficiently under

9

the schedule set for this case in Doc. #32.

10

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

11
12
13

DATED: ______________

By:
JESSE J. BOYKIN
Plaintiff In Pro Per

14
15

MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney

16
17
18
DATED: ______________
19
20
21
22
23

By:
NEILL T. TSENG
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties’ stipulation to shorten time is GRANTED
as modified: The hearing on Defendant’s motion to amend its answer is scheduled to be heard on
September 20, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be

24
filed by no later than August 22, 2011, and Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed by no later
25
than August 29, 2011. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule
26
7-1(b), the Court, in its discretion, may resolve the motion without oral argument. The parties
27
28

are advised to check the Court’s website to determine whether a court appearance is required.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SHORTENED TIME ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
3
C 10-2517 SBA

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

DATED:

8/11/11

_____________________________________________
HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SHORTENED TIME ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
4
C 10-2517 SBA

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BOYKIN et al,
Case Number: CV10-02517 SBA

5
6

Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.

7
POTTER ET AL et al,
8
Defendant.
9

/

10
11
12
13
14

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on August 11, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16
17

Jesse J. Boykin
745 Jackson Street
Fairfield, CA 94533-5715

18
19
20

Dated: August 11, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR SHORTENED TIME ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
5
C 10-2517 SBA