STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FILING DEADLINE

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request a continuance of the deadline for filing the parties' dispositive motions from November 6, 2014, to Janury 15, 2015. Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because plaintiff's counsel has been fully occupied in plaintiff's predecessor case, Lopez v. Cook, 2:03-cv-01605, in which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed six defendants and a cause of action (see Docs. 384 & 385, 2:03-cv-01605), and has subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment and oppositions (see Docs. 392 & 393, 397 & 398) and will be filing replies October 24, with a motion's hearing date of November 7, 2014. In addition counsel, for the last year and on a continuing basis, has had significant responsibilities in two ongoing family medical issues.

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (1992),(describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes of 1983 amendment). "The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'" Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).

As noted, in Lopez v. Cook the parties are fully engaged in the process of litigating cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has streamlined the action by voluntarily dismissing six defendants who were not clearly liable under plaintiff's core claim of Fourteenth Amendment due process violations related to his 2000 gang validation. In the instant case, plaintiff has alleged violations of due process of related to gang validations which occurred in 2003 and 2005. Both those validations were premised on the same gang validation sources as 2000 and on the presumption that the 2000 validation was constitutionally valid. If the court in Cook rules that the 2000 validation was obtained in violation of plaintiff's clearly established due process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard, the decision could have significant impact on the pending claims in this case.

For that reason, the parties believe that moving the preparation and filing of the dispositive motions here to a later date when the impact of the Cook summary judgment outcome can be known and the motions drafted with those consequences in mind would best serve judicial economy.

Secondly, plaintiff's counsel's best friend, Thomas Quinn, last year and early this year underwent treatment for parotid (salivary) gland cancer, and counsel was an integral part of his support team. His assisted during Mr. Quinn's surgery, and radiation and chemotherapy treatments, which consumed approximately five months. He was found clear of cancer in February of this year, but it has recently returned and counsel has again assisted him in a similar course of treatment as last year, including numerous instances out of town travel for consultations and tests. In the last m days, Mr. Quinn was diagnosed as having an aggressive recurrence

Further, counsel is the power of attorney and medical advocate for a family member, Susan Richardson, who has been undergoing cancer treatment since the Summery of 2014 for stage four ovarian cancer. In August, Ms. Richardson was transferred to Sierra Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, and was in a coma for several days. Counsel flew to El Paso and spent five days to attend to her situation. Fortunately, Ms. Richardson improved and was returned to a nursing facility in New Mexico and is undergoing further recuperation in advance of additional cancer treatment. Counsel's role as power of attorney has additionally required considerable time managing financial matters.

For the court's consideration, plaintiff's counsel has attached letters from some of the medical providers in the above matters.

For these reasons, the parties request that the parties' dispositive motions filing deadline be continued to January 15, 201, or later. In addition to the outcome of the Cook summary judgments, plaintiff's counsel would like time prior to the preparation of dispositive motions to "streamline" plaintiff's case as was done in Cook. In the alternative, the parties request that the dispositive motions deadline be vacated and the matter be set for a status conference after the rulings on the pending motions are issued in Lopez v. Cook, 2:03-cv-01605.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based on the parties' stipulation and good cause appearing, it is ordered that:

The dispositive motion filing deadline of November 6, 2014, is continued to January 15, 2015. No further extensions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.