Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01245/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01245-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Trial in this matter is set for February 23, 2016.

On August 14, 2015, a consent order was signed by the Court that substitute Plaintiffs’ 

former counsel, Mr. William Smith, for current, Ms. Kay Parker. 

On September 21, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 

63. Hearing on this motion is set for October 26, 2015. 

Also on September 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to continue the 

discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial, and trial dates. See Doc. No. 67. Plaintiffs’ counsel 

explains in part that: Mr. Smith was essentially medically incapacitated from late June 2015 to his 

death in late July 2015, extensive discovery has occurred but is incomplete, Ms. Parker has been 

asked to take care of Mr. Smith’s cases and clients, Ms. Parker retrieved the paperwork for this 

case in late August 2015, and Ms. Parker requires additional time to familiarize herself with this 

case (and others) in order to prepare for trial, complete discovery, oppose summary judgment, etc. 

See id. Plaintiffs’ counsel requests a 60 day continuance to oppose summary judgment, and a 90 

to 120 day continuance to prepare for trial and address outstanding discovery issues. See id. It 

appears that defense counsel is not amenable to a continuance of any kind. See id.

After considering Plaintiffs’ application and the reasons surrounding the substitution of 

DIANE GOINS and WESLEY 

RENTFROW,

Plaintiffs

v.

COUNT OF MERCED, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1245 AWI SKO 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 

APPLICATION, ORDER VACATING 

CURRENT DATES, and ORDER ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 63, 67)

Case 1:13-cv-01245-DAD-SKO Document 70 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 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

2

counsel, as well as the Court’s calendar and trial schedule for February 2016, the Court finds that 

the circumstances of this case warrant granting the application in general, so that Ms. Parker can 

get up to speed with the nature of the case and any pending matters. However, the Court will not 

set any new dates at this time or make specific rulings about any particular outstanding issues. 

Instead, the Court will refer the matter to Magistrate Judge Oberto for entry of a new scheduling 

order. The parties should be prepared to address all discovery, motion practice, and trial related 

issues before Magistrate Judge Oberto.

Additionally, because a new scheduling order will be entered, the time for opposing 

summary judgment will certainly be affected. Although the 60 days requested by Ms. Parker may 

be a sufficient continuance, the Court instead will deny Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment without prejudice to re-noticing at a later time. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue (Doc. No. 67) is GRANTED in general;

2. All currently set dates and deadlines, including the October 23, 2015 summary judgment 

hearing date and the February 23, 2016 trial date, are VACATED;

3. Within ten (10) days of service of this order, the parties are to contact Magistrate Judge 

Oberto for the purpose of setting a new scheduling conference date so that a new 

scheduling order may be entered; and

4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED without prejudice to 

re-noticing, in compliance with the dates that will be set in the new scheduling order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The Court emphasizes that this is an administrative denial only, and it does not reflect on the merits in any way.

Case 1:13-cv-01245-DAD-SKO Document 70 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2