Opinion
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1245 AWI SKO
09-22-2015
DIANE GOINS and WESLEY RENTFROW, Plaintiffs v. COUNT OF MERCED, et al., Defendants
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION, ORDER VACATING CURRENT DATES, and ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 63, 67)
Trial in this matter is set for February 23, 2016.
On August 14, 2015, a consent order was signed by the Court that substitute Plaintiffs' former counsel, Mr. William Smith, for current, Ms. Kay Parker.
On September 21, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 63. Hearing on this motion is set for October 26, 2015.
Also on September 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to continue the discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial, and trial dates. See Doc. No. 67. Plaintiffs' counsel explains in part that: Mr. Smith was essentially medically incapacitated from late June 2015 to his death in late July 2015, extensive discovery has occurred but is incomplete, Ms. Parker has been asked to take care of Mr. Smith's cases and clients, Ms. Parker retrieved the paperwork for this case in late August 2015, and Ms. Parker requires additional time to familiarize herself with this case (and others) in order to prepare for trial, complete discovery, oppose summary judgment, etc. See id. Plaintiffs' counsel requests a 60 day continuance to oppose summary judgment, and a 90 to 120 day continuance to prepare for trial and address outstanding discovery issues. See id. It appears that defense counsel is not amenable to a continuance of any kind. See id.
After considering Plaintiffs' application and the reasons surrounding the substitution of counsel, as well as the Court's calendar and trial schedule for February 2016, the Court finds that the circumstances of this case warrant granting the application in general, so that Ms. Parker can get up to speed with the nature of the case and any pending matters. However, the Court will not set any new dates at this time or make specific rulings about any particular outstanding issues. Instead, the Court will refer the matter to Magistrate Judge Oberto for entry of a new scheduling order. The parties should be prepared to address all discovery, motion practice, and trial related issues before Magistrate Judge Oberto.
Additionally, because a new scheduling order will be entered, the time for opposing summary judgment will certainly be affected. Although the 60 days requested by Ms. Parker may be a sufficient continuance, the Court instead will deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to re-noticing at a later time.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' ex parte application to continue (Doc. No. 67) is GRANTED in general; 2. All currently set dates and deadlines, including the October 23, 2015 summary judgment hearing date and the February 23, 2016 trial date, are VACATED; 3. Within ten (10) days of service of this order, the parties are to contact Magistrate Judge Oberto for the purpose of setting a new scheduling conference date so that a new scheduling order may be entered; and 4. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED without prejudice to re-noticing, in compliance with the dates that will be set in the new scheduling order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 22, 2015
The Court emphasizes that this is an administrative denial only, and it does not reflect on the merits in any way. --------
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE