Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01345/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01345-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Trustees of the California State University
Defendant
Emir Jose Macari
Defendant
Cici Mattiuzzi
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

CICI MATTIUZZI,

NO. CIV. 2:11-1345 WBS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

and EMIR JOSE MACARI,

Defendants.

 /

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff has filed an Ex Parte Application to Continue

Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates (Docket No. 14) in this

action. Defendants oppose the request (Docket No. 23). By the

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed October 19, 2011 (Docket

No. 13), the Pretrial Conference is presently set for January 7,

2013, and the trial is set for March 19, 2013.

A Scheduling Order will not be amended without a

showing of good cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, plaintiff seeks to justify her

1

Case 2:11-cv-01345-WBS-JFM Document 28 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 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

request by showing that on October 12, 2012 one of the

defendants, Emir Jose Macari, filed a petition in bankruptcy, and

that plaintiff has decided to hire a new attorney who will not be

available on the dates presently set for the pretrial conference

and trial.

The court is not impressed that plaintiff’s decision to

retain a new attorney constitutes good cause to continue the

pretrial conference and trial dates which have been firmly

established for more than fourteen months. Plaintiff is

certainly entitled to retain new counsel of her choice, but if

she wishes to do so it is her responsibility to select one who

can be available for the already scheduled pretrial conference

and trial. Although plaintiff summarily refers to

“irreconcilable difference” with her present counsel, there is no

sufficient explanation of the nature of those differences or when

they arose. This kind of allegation is all too typical in cases

where a party simply seeks delay for other unrelated reasons. If

this were the only reason offered for the requested continuance,

the court would deny it.

However, under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 361(a),

this court is precluded from continuing with this action as

against defendant Emir Macari unless and until his bankruptcy has

been finally adjudicated or relief has been obtained from the

automatic stay. See Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d

754 (9th Cir. 1995). Neither side has suggested proceeding with

this action as against the remaining defendant, Board of Trustees

of the California State University, only. Because it appears

that Macari’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy is still pending and that no

2

Case 2:11-cv-01345-WBS-JFM Document 28 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 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

relief has been obtained from the automatic stay of § 361(a),

this court is without authority to proceed with either the

pretrial conference or trial as against him in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be, and the

same hereby is, STAYED pending the bankruptcy proceedings of

defendant Emir Macari. All pending dates are vacated.

DATED: January 2, 2013

3

Case 2:11-cv-01345-WBS-JFM Document 28 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 3