STUIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE INTIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff served his Complaint in this matter on April 9, 2014. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), the United States' responsive pleading was originally due on June 9, 2014. Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties stipulated and agreed to extend the response date to pursue settlement, and again to permit Plaintiff to amend his Complaint. The Court granted each such request, setting a response date for 14-days after Plaintiff amended his complaint. [Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, & 12]. The Court also continued the scheduling conference to August 26, 2014 with a joint status report due seven days prior. [Dkt. No. 8.] Plaintiff amended his Complaint on August 14, 2014, but added two individual defendants sued in their official capacities. Under Rule 4(i), their responses would be due 60-days from service of process; by contrast, the agency-defendants' responses would be due August 28 under the Court's order. [Dkt. No. 12].

All claims in this matter revolve around a common set of facts and circumstances, and both the agency and individual defendants' defenses will be similar. Thus, it would be inefficient to have the agency defendants respond on one date and the individual defendants respond weeks later. Thus, the parties hereby stipulate that all Defendants shall respond on or before September 12, 2014, at which time Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss.

In light of the above, the parties also stipulate to continue the initial scheduling conference. In Defendants' view, this is a record case under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") which should involve no discovery, and simply a review to determine whether the Air Force's final action was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Plaintiff has chosen to file other actions, however, naming the Veterans' Administration as a defendant, and attempting to state claims under the Constitution against individual federal officers and employees. Thus, it will be difficult to determine the appropriate schedule for the case until after the motion to dismiss is decided. If all that is left is an APA claim, then the parties can proceed to assemble and lodge the record, and brief the merits. If other claims remain, however, discovery might be appropriate (or necessary) to determine issues such as qualified immunity. Therefore, the parties stipulate to continue the status conference to a date after the Court issues the order on the forthcoming motion to dismiss.

ORDER

The parties having stipulated, and good cause appearing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.