Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00538-4/pdf.json

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

1

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive-Motion Deadlines 

(2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN)

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California

CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 445-4928

Facsimile: (916) 324-5205

E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Robles and Rodriguez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

MIKKOS GOODMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

MODIFY THE AMENDED 

SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND 

DISPOSITIVE-MOTION DEADLINES 

Trial Date: February 27, 2017

Action Filed: March 18, 2013

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through 

their counsel of record, agree to and request a modification of the Amended Scheduling Order, 

dated September 3, 2015 (ECF No. 32), to extend the dispositive-motion deadlines by seven days. 

Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because the parties have reached a tentative settlement 

agreement, but require additional time to finalize the terms of the agreement. Settlement will 

obviate the need to file or brief dispositive motions. 

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of 

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In 

considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court 

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 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

2

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive-Motion Deadlines 

(2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN)

primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district 

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 

amendment). 

On September 3, 2015, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order, setting August 18, 

2016 as the last date to hear dispositive motions. (ECF No. 32 at 4:2.) The Order requires the

parties to file the moving papers at least eight weeks before the hearing. (Id. at 4:5-6.) Based on 

the Court’s law-and-motion calendar, August 11, 2016 is the latest available date to hear 

dispositive motions. This requires that moving papers be filed by June 16, 2016. 

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery, and Defendants Robles and 

Rodriguez intend to file a dispositive motion. Defendants County of San Joaquin, Grubb, and 

Clearly filed their motion on June 14, 2016. (See ECF No. 35.)

Recently, the parties have been engaging in informal settlement discussions. On June 14, 

2016, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. They are scheduled to have a 

conference call on June 16, 2016 to finalize the terms of the agreement. To avoid incurring 

further litigation costs and fees and to give the parties time to finalize their settlement agreement, 

the parties seek a seven-day extension, up to and including August 25, 2016, of the deadline to 

hear dispositive motions. This requested extension will not affect any other scheduling deadline. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

///

////

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 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

3

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive-Motion Deadlines 

(2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN)

Dated: June 16, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Diana Esquivel

DIANA ESQUIVEL

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants Robles and 

Rodriguez

Dated: June 16, 2016 MAYALL, HURLEY, P.C.

/s/ Mark E. Berry

MARK E. BERRY

DERICK E. KONZ

Attorneys for Defendants County of San 

Joaquin, Adam Grubb, and Robert Clearly

Dated: June 16, 2016 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

/s/ Benjamin Nisenbaum

JOHN L. BURRIS

BENJAMIN NISENBAUM

Attorneys for Plaintiff Mikkos Goodman

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 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

4

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive-Motion Deadlines 

(2:13-cv-00538 MCE-KJN)

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request for a seven-day extension of the 

deadline to hear dispositive motions is GRANTED. 

The last day to hear dispositive motions shall be August 25, 2016. The parties shall comply 

with the related briefing deadlines set out in the September 23, 2015 Amended Scheduling Order. 

(ECF No. 32.) In all other respects, the Amended Scheduling Order remains in full force and 

effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 17, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 4