Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. BURWELL, 3:14CV1345 SC. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141117722 Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2014
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12 of the Northern District of California, Federal Defendant and Plaintiff Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital hereby stipulate to the following: 1. The Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on March 24, 2014. 2. While Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in initial settlement discussions the parties stipulated to extend the tim
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12 of the Northern District of California, Federal Defendant and Plaintiff Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital hereby stipulate to the following:

1. The Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on March 24, 2014.

2. While Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in initial settlement discussions the parties stipulated to extend the time Defendant had to answer or respond to the Complaint until October 30, 2014.

3. In light of that stipulation, the Court sua sponte continued the initial case management conference to November 21, 2014, with a joint statement due November 14, 2014.1

4. On October 30, 2014 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (b)(6).

5. Defendant noticed the hearing on the motion for December 5, 2014.

6. Under Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff has 14 days, or to November 13, 2014, to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

7. Alternatively, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff has 21 days from the date the motion to dismiss was filed, or to and including November 20, 2014, to amend its Complaint as a matter of course.

8. Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint as provide under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) on or before November 20, 2014.

9. Though Plaintiff does not intend to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the parties are filing this Stipulation out of an abundance of caution to reconcile the two, seemingly conflicting deadlines and notify the Court so that it does not rule on the motion while the Amended Complaint is being prepared.

10. Meanwhile, the parties have also re-engaged in settlement negotiations.

11. To provide time for those negotiations, and to avoid potentially unnecessary litigation, the parties have stipulated that the 14 days Defendant would ordinarily have to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a)(3) should be extended until January 30, 2015.

12. For the same reason, the parties have stipulated and suggest that the Court reschedule the initial case management conference for February 20, 2015 at 10:00 am.

THEREFORE, the parties respectfully request the Court enter an order (1) acknowledging that Plaintiff will file an Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) on or before November 20, 2014; (2) that Defendant's responsive pleading or motion to the Amended Complaint is due January 30, 2015; and (3) continuing the case management conference until Friday February 20, 2015 at 10:00 am.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

On or before November 20, 2014, Plaintiff will file its Amended Complaint in lieu of filing an opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss;

Defendant's responsive pleading or motion is due on or before January 30, 2015;

The initial case management conference is continued to February 20, 2015 at 10:00 am.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer