(PC) Freeman v. Clark

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 Attorney General of California TRACY S. HENDRICKSON, State Bar No. 155081 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOSEPH R. WHEELER, State Bar No. 216721 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7315 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants K. Clark and C. Bell Greg W. Garrotto, State Bar #89542 LAW OFFICES OF GREG W. GARROTTO 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone (310) 229-9200 Fax: 310-229-9209 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Leroy Freeman IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION LEROY FREEMAN, 1:21-cv-00611-NONE-JLT 19 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE AND RESET SCHEDULING 20 v. CONFERENCE (Doc. 18) CLARK, et al., Defendants.

25 A scheduling conference in this case is currently set for October 25, 2021, and the parties are required to submit a joint scheduling report by October 18, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, request that the scheduling conference and deadline for submitting a joint scheduling report be vacated and reset to sometime after a defendant has filed an answer in this action.

4 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 also, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609. Good cause exists here because the pleadings are not yet settled and new parties have been brought into the action who have not yet been served.

8 On September 22, 2021, the Court granted Defendants Clark and Bell’s motion to dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 13, 2021, which names not only Clark and Bell, but also six additional defendants.

11 These additional defendants have yet to be served with the Summons and Complaint. Moreover, Clark and Bell expect to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Until the Court rules on this motion to dismiss, the new defendants are served, and the pleadings are settled, the parties cannot properly prepare an accurate joint scheduling report or effectively participate in a scheduling conference.

16 / / / / / / / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate as follows: the scheduling conference currently set for October 25, 2021, and the deadline for the parties to submit a joint scheduling report, be vacated. The scheduling conference be reset to sometime after any defendant files an answer in this action.

5 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

6 Dated: October 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 7 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 8 TRACY S. HENDRICKSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ JOSEPH R. WHEELER JOSEPH R. WHEELER 11 Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 12 K. Clark and C. Bell Dated: October 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 14 LAW OFFICES OF GREG W. GARROTTO 15 /s/ Greg W. Garrotto 1 Greg W. Garrotto Attorneys for Plaintiff Leroy Freeman ORDER 19 Based upon the above stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the scheduling conference set for October 25, 2021, is CONTINUED to February 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The joint scheduling conference report shall be filed at least one week prior to conference.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: October 15, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28 1 As authorized via e-mail on October 15, 2021.