Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00397-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janet Bowen
Plaintiff
Columbine Vineyards
Defendant
M. Caratan, Inc.
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET BOWEN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CARATAN, INC. dba COLUMBINE 

VINEYARDS; DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-00397-DAD-JLT

ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. No. 33)

Plaintiff Janet Bowen originally brought this action on March 20, 2014 alleging causes of 

action related to her termination from Columbine Vineyards in November 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) 

On December 10, 2015, the previously presiding District Judge issued a pretrial order setting 

deadlines for motions in limine and establishing a February 9, 2016 jury trial date. (Doc. No. 28.) 

On December 21, 2015, after the matter was reassigned to the undersigned and the hearing date 

on motions in limine was reset to February 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 31.) Likewise, on December 28, 

2015, the deadlines for filing motions in limine and motions in limine responses were reset to

January 21, 2016 and January 28, 2016, respectively. (Doc. No. 32.) The jury trial remains 

scheduled to commence on February 9, 2016.

On January 6, 2016, defendant filed a motion for extension of time seeking to amend the 

Rule 16 scheduling order to continue the trial and trial related dates until late May 2016. (Doc. 

No. 33.) The basis for this motion is the representation that defendant’s designated trial counsel, 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-DAD-JLT Document 34 Filed 01/08/16 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

2

Todd R. Kinnear, recently left the firm of Gordon & Rees LLP, and his replacement designated 

trial counsel, Asim K. Desai, needs additional time to prepare for trial and is unavailable to

proceed on the date currently set for trial to commence. (Id. at 2:10-15.) Attorney Kinnear 

reportedly gave notice of his intent to terminate his employment with Gordon & Rees LLP on 

December 15, 2015 and then did, in fact, leave the firm on December 31, 2015. (Id. at 4:11-13.) 

These assertions are supported by the declaration of counsel Gary D. Leasure filed and served 

concurrently with defendant’s motion for an extension of time. (Doc. No. 33-1.) Finally, in their

motion defendant’s counsel indicates that the parties have conferred regarding defendant’s 

request for a continuance but that plaintiff’s counsel has declined to stipulate to a continuance of 

the trial date.

Local Rule 230(b) requires that the moving party for all civil motions file a notice of 

motion and that the motion be set for hearing on the motion calendar no less than twenty-eight 

(28) days after service and filing of the motion. However, Local Rule 144(e) allows for the court 

to grant applications to shorten time when based upon an affidavit of counsel showing a 

satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order. Motions in limine in this 

case are currently due to be filed by January 21, 2016 and the present motion should therefore be 

decided prior to that date. Accordingly, the court will construe defendant’s motion for an

extension of time to include an application for an order shortening time. The court further finds 

that the circumstances here, as described in the declaration of attorney Gary D. Leasure, justify 

the issuance of an order shortening time. The court therefore grants such an order and will set a 

briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to defendant’s motion for extension of time.

Based on the foregoing:

1. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for extension of time must be filed and 

served on or before January 15, 2016;

2. The filing of a reply brief will not be authorized; and

3. Defendant’s motion for extension of time will be heard on the civil law and motion 

calendar Tuesday, January 19, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before 

District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Telephonic appearance by counsel is authorized and 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-DAD-JLT Document 34 Filed 01/08/16 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

3

may be arranged by contacting Courtroom Deputy Renee Gaumnitz at least fortyeight hours in advance of the scheduled hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00397-DAD-JLT Document 34 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3