Suit v. City of Folsom, 2:16-cv-00807-WBS-AC. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160729825
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 28, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . The Pretrial Scheduling Conference is scheduled for August 15, 2016. Docket No. 3. Based on that date, the parties are to meet and confer and prepare a Joint Pretrial Scheduling Statement by August 1, 2016. Id. Defendants CITY OF FOLSOM, FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT and OFFICER KRACHER have a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pending that is scheduled for hearing on A
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . The Pretrial Scheduling Conference is scheduled for August 15, 2016. Docket No. 3. Based on that date, the parties are to meet and confer and prepare a Joint Pretrial Scheduling Statement by August 1, 2016. Id. Defendants CITY OF FOLSOM, FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT and OFFICER KRACHER have a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pending that is scheduled for hearing on Au..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
The Pretrial Scheduling Conference is scheduled for August 15, 2016. Docket No. 3. Based on that date, the parties are to meet and confer and prepare a Joint Pretrial Scheduling Statement by August 1, 2016. Id. Defendants CITY OF FOLSOM, FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT and OFFICER KRACHER have a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pending that is scheduled for hearing on August 8, 2015. Docket No. 9. Defendants' motion challenges the sufficiency of all of Plaintiffs' causes of action alleged against these Defendants and also raises legal defenses (immunity). The defenses raised by the motion so pervade the case as to render impracticable any meaningful conference between the parties regarding the proposed discovery plan and scheduling issues prior to the resolution of Defendants' motion.
Given the pending motion, the parties respectfully request that the Pretrial Scheduling Conference be continued until at least 60 days after Defendants' answer to the operative complaint, which interval would give counsel the time and ability to conduct a meaningful FRCP Rule 26(f) conference based on the causes of action at issue and prepare a Joint Status Report addressing each of the items identified in the Court's Scheduling Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Good cause appearing, the Scheduling Conference is hereby continued to October 24, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. A Joint Status Report must be filed on behalf of the parties on or before October 11, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle