Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04841/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04841-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed February 3, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

JUAN CARLOS KAKOGUI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AMERICA BROKERS CONDUIT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-04841 JF (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 

[Re: Docket No. 28] 

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Kakogui sued defendants in October 2009, alleging various federal and 

state claims pertaining to his home mortgage. Defendants moved to dismiss his complaint, but the 

motion was mooted when Kakogui filed a First Amended Complaint. Defendants then moved to 

dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The hearing for this motion to dismiss is set for March 26, 

2010, the same day as the case’s initial case management conference. 

Plaintiff now moves for an order shortening time to hear his motion to conduct discovery 

prior to the time specified in Rule 26(d). Defendants did not file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to plaintiff’s administrative motion within the time specified by this court’s Local Rules. 

See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-11. 

According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party cannot conduct discovery until 

meeting and conferring pursuant to Rule 26(f), unless otherwise authorized by the Rules, stipulation 

of the parties, or court order.1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Rule 26(f) provides that the parties must meet 

 

1

 Rule 26(d) contains exemptions for certain proceedings that are not relevant here. 

Case 5:09-cv-04841-LHK Document 29 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

and confer at least twenty-one days before the initial scheduling conference to prepare for initial 

disclosures and develop a plan for discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Plaintiff asserts that he served 

discovery upon defendants, but that they objected to his requests on grounds that he served them too 

early. He argues that because the initial scheduling conference is now set for the same day as 

defendants’ motion to dismiss, he will be “without the benefit of the issuance of a Rule 26(d) 

discovery order setting forth discovery guidelines” for the case in advance of the motion to dismiss. 

(Mot. 2.) As a result, he says, he will be “severely prejudiced” if the court does not hear his motion 

to conduct early discovery on shortened time. (Id. at 3.) 

Despite plaintiff’s desire to conduct early discovery, the hearing on defendants’ motion to 

dismiss is not based on any evidence that Kakogui might gather from discovery. Instead, the motion 

tests the sufficiency of his First Amended Complaint as pled. Furthermore, the window of time for 

the required 26(f) meet-and-confer process in preparation of the initial scheduling conference has 

not yet arrived. As a result, the court finds good cause lacking and, accordingly, DENIES 

Kakogui’s motion to shorten time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-04841-LHK Document 29 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

For the Northern District of California 

C 09-04841 JF (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Donald John Querio djq@severson.com 

Jason M. Julian jmj@severson.com, jc@severson.com, ksb@severson.com 

Juan Carlos Kakogui carloskakogui@gmail.com, fivestarassist@gmail.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-04841-LHK Document 29 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3