Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KERN COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00558-NODJ-CDB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 119)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 

TIME TO HEAR PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 121)

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Vicente Benavides Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 

with the filing of his complaint. (Doc. 1). According to the parties, thereafter, they “embarked

on an arduous discovery journey in this complex matter.” (Doc. 92 at 2).

1

 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ second request to extend case management dates 

due to the health-related unavailability of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. James Ophoven, to 

appear for deposition. (Doc. 119). Based on Plaintiff’s representations in the unopposed 

1 The Court incorporates herein the procedural history of this case set forth in its 

November 13, 2023, order. (Doc. 107). 

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 122 Filed 01/08/24 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

motion,2the Court finds good cause to adopt the proposed amendments to the scheduling order 

and shall order the case management dates be amended. 

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the 

scheduling order regarding expert discovery, motion and trial dates (Doc. 119) is GRANTED;

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling order is amended as follows:

And it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s ex parte application to shorten time to hear 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend scheduling order (Doc. 121) is DENIED AS MOOT.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to VACATE the motion hearing set for January 16, 2024, 

at 10:30 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 Plaintiff represented in his motion that “Counsel for defendants County of Kern, 

Carbone, Bresson and Lopez, and counsel for [D]efendant Dibdin, responded...they had no 

opposition to extending the dates on that schedule.” (Doc. 119 at 3).

3 The extended expert discovery deadline is to facilitate only the completion of the expert 

depositions that were timely noticed prior to the then-operative October 31, 2023, deadline. 

Expert discovery deadline3 May 31, 2024

Dispositive motion deadline June 21, 2024

Dispositive motion hearing July 12, 2024 

Pretrial Conference September 9, 2024

Trial October 29, 2024 

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 122 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 2