Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00315/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00315-3/pdf.json

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

---

Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Complaint and Continue Scheduling Conference. 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GOH, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, et al..

Defendants

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

STUIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 

TO COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE 

INTIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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 to extend the response date to pursue 

settlement, and again to permit Plaintiff to amend his Complaint. The Court granted each such 

request, setting a response date for 14-days after Plaintiff amended his complaint. [Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, & 

12]. The Court also continued the scheduling conference to August 26, 2014 with a joint status report 

due seven days prior. [Dkt. No. 8.] Plaintiff amended his Complaint on August 14, 2014, but added 

two individual defendants sued in their official capacities. Under Rule 4(i), their responses would be 

due 60-days from service of process; by contrast, the agency-defendants’ responses would be due 

August 28 under the Court’s order. [Dkt. No. 12]. 

All claims in this matter revolve around a common set of facts and circumstances, and both 

the agency and individual defendants’ defenses will be similar. Thus, it would be inefficient to have 

the agency defendants respond on one date and the individual defendants respond weeks later. Thus, 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO Document 16 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Complaint and Continue Scheduling Conference. 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

the parties hereby stipulate that all Defendants shall respond on or before September 12, 2014, at 

which time Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss.

In light of the above, the parties also stipulate to continue the initial scheduling conference. 

In Defendants’ view, this is a record case under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) which 

should involve no discovery, and simply a review to determine whether the Air Force’s final action 

was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Plaintiff has chosen to file 

other actions, however, naming the Veterans’ Administration as a defendant, and attempting to state 

claims under the Constitution against individual federal officers and employees. Thus, it will be 

difficult to determine the appropriate schedule for the case until after the motion to dismiss is 

decided. If all that is left is an APA claim, then the parties can proceed to assemble and lodge the 

record, and brief the merits. If other claims remain, however, discovery might be appropriate (or 

necessary) to determine issues such as qualified immunity. Therefore, the parties stipulate to 

continue the status conference to a date after the Court issues the order on the forthcoming motion to 

dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: August 18, 2014

By: /s/ Nicholas Jurkowitz(auth. 08/18/2014) __ Nicholas Jurkowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: August 18, 2014 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Gregory T. Broderick (auth. 08/18/2014)

GREGORY T. BRODERICK Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO Document 16 Filed 08/20/14 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation for Extension to Respond to Complaint and Continue Scheduling Conference. 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

ORDER

The parties having stipulated, and good cause appearing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be due on or before September 

12, 2014; 

2. The initial scheduling conference is CONTINUED to December 9, 2014, at 10:30 

a.m. and will be reset if necessary to the extent any motion to dismiss remains 

pending at that time; and

3. The parties' joint scheduling report shall be filed by no later than December 2, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00315-LJO-SKO Document 16 Filed 08/20/14 Page 3 of 3