Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00315/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00315-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GOH, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS and THE UNITED 

STATES AIR FORCE.

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

GRANTING THIRD EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff served his Complaint in this matter on April 9, 2014. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(i), the United States’ responsive pleading was originally due on June 9, 2014. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the parties stipulated and agreed that Defendant would have an 

extension of 21 days, up to and including June 30, 2014, within which to respond to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint [Dkt. No. 1], for purposes of pursuing settlement options. The Court granted that request, 

and moved the scheduling conference to August 26, 2014, in that same order. [Dkt. No. 8.] Although 

settlement efforts were unsuccessful, Plaintiff and Defendants identified the potential to narrow the 

claims and defenses in the case, and Plaintiff was considering an amendment or his Complaint. 

Thereafter, in order to permit Plaintiff time to fully consider his position and determine 

whether to file an amended complaint, the parties agreed to a further 14-day extension for 

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, from June 30, 2014, to July 14, 2014. That request 

was granted on July 2, 2014. [Dkt. No. 10.].

The parties have again met and conferred, and Plaintiff intends to file an Amended 

Complaint based on that meet and confer. Thus, to avoid wasting the Court’s and the parties’ 

Case 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

resources on a responsive pleading to what will soon be a superseded complaint, the parties hereby 

stipulate that the United States’ response to the amended Complaint would be due 14 days after it is 

filed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: July 17, 2014

By /s/ Nicholas Jurkowitz __

Nicholas Jurkowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: July 17, 2014 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Gregory T. Broderick

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

 Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

Good cause appearing and in the interest of preserving the resources of the Court and the 

parties, the parties’ request to extend the time for Defendants to file an Answer is GRANTED. 

However, the parties have not indicated by when Plaintiff will file an Amended Complaint, and the 

case cannot remain pending indefinitely. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. 

Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (District courts have inherent power to control their 

dockets.). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order, by 

August 18, 2014; and

(2) Defendants shall file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

by September 1, 2014, or fourteen (14) days from the date of the filing of the Amended 

Complaint, whichever is sooner, pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2