Filed: Jun. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; [ PROPOSED ] ORDER (Doc. 24) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The Court has ordered that Defendants in this matter respond to the Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of its filing. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 24, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) Defendant Litt-Stoner is the only Defendant to appear in this matter, her response to the Second Amended Complaint is therefore due June
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; [ PROPOSED ] ORDER (Doc. 24) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The Court has ordered that Defendants in this matter respond to the Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of its filing. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 24, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) Defendant Litt-Stoner is the only Defendant to appear in this matter, her response to the Second Amended Complaint is therefore due June 1..
More
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
(Doc. 24)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has ordered that Defendants in this matter respond to the Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of its filing. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 24, 2019. (ECF No. 26.)
Defendant Litt-Stoner is the only Defendant to appear in this matter, her response to the Second Amended Complaint is therefore due June 14, 2019. Defendant Litt-Stoner's counsel has informed Plaintiffs' counsel, and now informs the Court, that he has a long-planned vacation scheduled for June 7-16.
The four other Defendants (Narayn, Seymour, Nesson, and Celosse) have not yet been served with any complaint or summons in this matter. Plaintiffs have requested that Defendant Litt-Stoner's counsel accept service. Defendant Litt-Stoner's counsel responded that he has not yet confirmed that he will be representing those four Defendants, and so he cannot accept service at this point.
In view of the fact that four of the five named Defendants have not yet been served, and in view of defense counsel's planned vacation, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
(1) Defendant Litt-Stoner's response to Plaintff's Second Amended Complaint shall be due June 24, 2019;
(2) The remaining Defendants' responses shall be due after service, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Adoption of this stipulation will not cause significant delay in the case or prejudice to any party. The proposed due date for Litt-Stoner's response is only four days after the response date that would have resulted had Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 30, 2019, as contemplated by the Court's order. There have been no previous extensions of time sought for this filing deadline.
Dated: June 3, 2019 Willoughby Brod, LLP,
/s/ Gregory J. Brod (as authorized 6/3/2019)
Gregory J. Brod,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dana Smithee and
E.M., a minor by and through guardian ad
litem Jennifer Montes
Dated: June 3, 2019 XAVIER BECERRA,
Attorney General of California,
JON S. ALLIN,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General,
/s/ Jeremy Duggan,
JEREMY DUGGAN,
Deputy Attorney General,
Sacramento, CA,
Attorneys for Defendant
State of California and R. Litt-Stoner.
[Proposed] ORDER
The Court notes that the previous stipulation (Doc. 25), related to the parties' agreement to allow the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint, was binding only on the parties who signed the stipulation—the plaintiffs and defendant Litt-Stoner. Consequently, the Courts order applied only to those parties, which are the only parties over whom it has jurisdiction currently. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. Defendant Litt-Stoner SHALL file the responsive pleading no later than June 24, 2019;
2. The request as to the remaining unserved defendants is DENIED as UNRIPE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
