Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02030/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02030-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

1 07cv2030-JM(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1800 SOUTH MAPLE STREET, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURANCE CO., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv2030-JM(NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING

A STAY OF THIS MATTER

[Doc. No. 20]

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter have filed an Ex Parte Application [Doc. No. 20]

requesting a stay of this case pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ currently pending motion to amend their

complaint. Plaintiffs have sought leave from the presiding District Judge to join an additional defendant

to the case; if leave is granted, Plaintiffs assert that the additional defendant’s presence in the case will

destroy diversity jurisdiction and necessitate remand of the case to state court. (Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte, 2.) 

As such, Plaintiffs request that this Court place a stay on the dates set forth in its January 10, 2008 Case

Management Order [Doc. No. 19] in order to avoid the “judicial inefficiency” that may result from the

parties meeting pursuant to Rule 26(f) while the motion to amend is pending. (Id. at 3.) 

Defendants oppose the request and argue that Plaintiffs fail to show good cause for the stay. 

(Defendants’ Opposition, Doc. No. 22, 2.) Defendants also assert that the deadlines and obligations

created by the Case Management Order are not onerous, and the case should continue to progress

forward pending the resolution on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. (Id.) In reply, Plaintiffs argue that

although they have been attempting in good faith to comply with the deadlines set forth in the Court’s

Case 3:07-cv-02030-JM-NLS Document 24 Filed 02/04/08 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 07cv2030-JM(NLS)

order, Defendants have not been cooperative in scheduling the Rule 26(f) conference. (Plaintiffs’ Reply,

Doc. No. 23, 2.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate good cause for a stay of the deadlines set by

this Court’s January 10, 2008 Case Management Order [Doc. No. 19]. The Court agrees with

Defendants’ assertion that the obligations are not onerous and will not result in judicial inefficiency

given the early stage of the litigation of this case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application [Doc. No. 20] is DENIED. The Rule 26(f)

conference shall be completed on or before February 8, 2008. All other terms and conditions of the

Court’s Case Management Order shall remain in full force and effect. Failure of any counsel or party to

comply with this order will result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02030-JM-NLS Document 24 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2