Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02027/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02027-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 19CV2027-MCE-AC

1

C:\Users\avillanueva\Desktop\MLL\Stones\Brill\20191212_Stip and order\Stip and Order.docx

Michael L. Lipman (SBN 66605)

Karen L. Alexander (SBN 265926)

DUANE MORRIS LLP

750 B Street, Suite 2900

San Diego, CA 92101-4681

Telephone: (619) 744-2200

Facsimile: (619) 744-2201

mllipman@duanemorris.com

klalexander@duanemorris.com

Heather U. Guerena (SBN 238122)

7727 Herschel Avenue

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 866-1020

Facsimile: (858) 551-4388

huguerena@elevationca.com

Attorneys for Defendant

King’s Casino, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERONICA BRILL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL L. POSTLE, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-cv-02027-MCE-AC

The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr.

STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER TO 

POSTPONE RULE 26(f) 

CONFERENCE, ORDER THEREON

Complaint Filed: October 8, 2019

Plaintiffs Veronica Brill et al. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel; Defendant King’s 

Casino, LLC d/b/a The Saloon at Stones Gambling Hall (“King’s Casino”), by and through 

counsel; and Defendant Justin Kuraitis (“Kuraitis,” and collectively with King’s Casino, 

“Defendants”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

First, that on October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs served King’s Casino with the Complaint 

and Summons. Pursuant to this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, the deadline for 

the parties to meet and confer regarding their discovery plan as required by Federal Rule of 

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 19CV2027-MCE-AC

2

C:\Users\avillanueva\Desktop\MLL\Stones\Brill\20191212_Stip and order\Stip and Order.docx

Civil Procedure 26(f) is presently December 16, 2019, which is 60 days from the date of 

service of the Complaint upon King’s Casino. Any amendments to the Initial Pretrial 

Scheduling Order require a showing of good cause under Rule 16(b). [Doc. 3, pp. 2, 6.] 

Second, that on November 9, 2019, Plaintiffs requested that Kuraitis waive service 

of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). Kuraitis agreed to do so, and 

Plaintiffs filed his waiver of service on November 19, 2019. [Doc. 10.]

Third, that Plaintiffs have not yet served defendant Michael L. Postle.

Fourth, that King’s Casino and Kuraitis have informed Plaintiffs that they intend to 

file Rule 12 Motions challenging, inter alia, the Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 

over the state law claims against them and the Complaint’s failure to state any claim upon 

which relief can be granted. Per the parties’ Stipulations and this Court’s Order, the 

deadline for both Defendants to file their Rule 12 Motions is presently February 5, 2020. 

[Docs. 11-13.]

Fifth, that the parties jointly request to postpone the Rule 26(f) conference and all 

related discovery deadlines until after all Defendants have been served, after this Court has 

ruled on all Rule 12 Motions, and after all Defendants have filed an Answer. Good cause 

exists because the type, extent, and nature of discovery will undoubtedly be shaped by the 

outcome of the Rule 12 Motions. Without knowing which parties and factual issues will 

remain in the case, it will be very difficult for the parties to meaningfully discuss the topics 

required by Rule 26(f) or formulate their Joint Discovery Plan, much less make Initial 

Disclosures and engage in written discovery or depositions.

Sixth, that Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1992). Diligence is not an issue here. The parties seek to postpone the Rule 26(f) 

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 4
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

STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 19CV2027-MCE-AC

3

C:\Users\avillanueva\Desktop\MLL\Stones\Brill\20191212_Stip and order\Stip and Order.docx

conference not because they cannot meet the Court’s deadline, but because they believe it 

would be inefficient and ineffective to commence discovery prior to resolving which parties 

and causes of action will remain in this case after the pleading stage. Thus, the parties’ 

request to amend the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order is supported by good cause.

By entering into this Stipulation, Defendants do not enter a general appearance and 

do not waive (and expressly reserve) all rights, legal challenges, and arguments, including 

any jurisdictional or other defenses that may be raised in a motion under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b).

Accordingly, the parties jointly request that this Court amend the Initial Pretrial 

Scheduling Order to postpone the Rule 26(f) discovery conference and all related discovery 

dates and deadlines (including the filing of the joint discovery plan, the making of initial 

disclosures and the commencement of discovery) until 30 days after the Court has ruled on 

the Rule 12 Motions and the last Defendant has filed an Answer.

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: December 9, 2019 DUANE MORRIS LLP

By: s/Michael L. Lipman

 Michael L. Lipman

 Duane Morris LLP

 Attorneys for Defendant

 King’s Casino, LLC

Dated: December 9, 2019 THE VERSTANDIG LAW FIRM, LLC

By: s/ Maurice B. VerStandig (as authorized on 

 12/9/2019)

 Maurice B. VerStandig (pro hac vice)

 The VerStandig Law Firm, LLC

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: December 11, 2019 s/ Justin Kuraitis

 Justin Kuraitis (in propia persona)

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 4
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

STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 19CV2027-MCE-AC

4

C:\Users\avillanueva\Desktop\MLL\Stones\Brill\20191212_Stip and order\Stip and Order.docx

ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties’ Stipulation to Amend the Initial Pretrial 

Scheduling Order, and finding good cause therefore, hereby orders: The Initial Pretrial 

Scheduling Order (p. 2, lines 15-17) will be amended such that the parties shall meet and 

confer regarding their discovery plan as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) 

within 30 days of the date on which the last Defendant files an Answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 4