United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2023

(PC) Penton v. Hubard

(PC) Penton v. Hubard
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided October 27, 2023
(PC) Penton v. Hubard

Trial Court Opinion

1 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No.: 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No.: 287165 University Avenue, Suite 280 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: 916-974-8500 Facsimile: 916-974-8510 Emails: [email protected] 5 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, L. Johnson SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN: 206822) [email protected] Jonathan C. Sanders (SBN: 228785) [email protected] Hilary Wong (SBN: 336544) [email protected] Pierce A. MacConaghy (SBN: 341371) [email protected] 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 Attorneys for Plaintiff Anthony Penton 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

19 ANTHONY PENTON, ) Case No.: 2:11-CV-00518-DJC-KJN ) 20 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) EXTEND DEADLINES 21 vs. ) ) L. JOHNSON, , ) ) 23 Defendant. ) ) 25 Plaintiff Anthony Penton (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Layton Johnson (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) respectfully submit this stipulation to request extensions of various deadlines related to the filing of post-trial motions.

1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time period, the court may, for good cause, extend the time. . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires. . .” As the Ninth Circuit has said, “[r]equests for extension of time made before the applicable deadline has passed ‘normally . . . should be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 642 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

8 Accordingly, the parties stipulate to the following briefing schedule related to the filing of post-trial motions: 10 • Defendant be allowed to supplement his Rule 59 motion within 7 days of receipt of 11 the official transcript for purposes of adding citations to the record; 12 • Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 59 motion is due 14 days after the filing of 13 Defendant’s supplemental brief; 14 • Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 59 motion is due 10 15 days after the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition; 16 • Defendant’s Rule 50 motion is due within 21 days of receipt of the official transcript 17 in accordance with the Court’s minute order (ECF 371); 18 • Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 50 brief is due 14 days after filing of 19 Defendant’s Rule 50 motion; 20 • Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 50 brief is due 10 21 days after filing of Plaintiff’s opposition; 22 • Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for costs and fees (ECF 378) is due 14 23 days after resolution of Defendant’s Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions.

24 The Parties also request that the current hearing date for Defendant’s Rule 59 motion be vacated and re-set after the filing of Defendant’s Rule 50 briefing so that both motions may be heard at the same time.

Dated: October 26, 2023 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP By: /s/ Nicole M. Cahill 3 VAN LONGYEAR NICOLE M. CAHILL Attorneys for Defendant, 5 L. Johnson Dated: October 26, 2023 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

9 By: /s/ Pierce A. MacConaghy [as authorized on 10-26-23] HARRISON J. FRAHN IV JONATHAN C. SANDERS 11 HILARY CHI WING WONG PIERCE A. MACCONAGHY 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Anthony Penton 1 ORDER RE: EXTENSION DEADLINES 2 Based on the foregoing Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that briefing of post-trial motions be scheduled as follows: 4 • Defendant be allowed to supplement his Rule 59 motion within 7 days of receipt of 5 the official transcript for purposes of adding citations to the record; 6 • Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 59 motion is due 14 days after the filing of 7 Defendant’s supplemental brief; 8 • Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 59 motion is due 10 9 days after the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition; 10 • Defendant’s Rule 50 motion is due within 21 days of receipt of the official transcript 11 in accordance with the Court’s minute order (ECF 371); 12 • Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 50 brief is due 14 days after filing of 13 Defendant’s Rule 50 motion; 14 • Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Rule 50 brief is due 10 15 days after filing of Plaintiff’s opposition; 16 • Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for costs and fees (ECF 378) is due 14 17 days after resolution of Defendant’s Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions.

18 Additionally, the current hearing date for Defendant’s Rule 59 motion is VACATED, to be re-set after the filing of Defendant’s Rule 50 briefing so that both motions may be heard at the same time.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2023 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.