From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Starbuck v. Puget Sound Energy Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Sep 25, 2023
2:23-cv-01237-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sep. 25, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-01237-BJR

09-25-2023

MARILYN STARBUCK; Steven Shaw as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CHARLES STARBUCK, DO; ELIZABETH MAPLE; and Steven Shaw as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEFA STARBUCK, Plaintiffs, v. PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. a Washington public utility corporation; BRADFORD WHITE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., a foreign corporation; WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; LONGBOARD HOLDINGS LIMITED, a Washington corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF INITIAL SCHEDULING DEADLINES

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge

The parties have stipulated and moved the Court to suspend their initial disclosure and joint status report obligations under Federal Rule 26(f), asserting that given the pending motions to dismiss and to remand, “the Court should extend the deadlines.” Dkt. No. 25 at 2. A Court may extend initial deadlines upon a showing of “good cause for delay.” LCR 16(a); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). However, “[a] pending dispositive motion is not, as a general matter, good cause for extending court deadlines.” Taylor v. Metro. Dev. Council, 2022 WL 3646787, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 24, 2022) (citing Edmonds v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 8996835, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2020) (treating a motion to stay initial case deadlines as seeking, in effect, to stay the entire case and observing that a “pending motion to dismiss is generally not grounds for staying discovery.”)). In this case, Plaintiffs claim in response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that the motion should be denied because, among other things, “there are genuine issues of material fact to be decided by the trier of fact.” Pls.' Opp. at 3. Additionally, whether or not Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand proves meritorious, requiring the initial scheduling conference and the exchange of initial disclosures to proceed without delay will serve the speedy resolution of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion for an extension of initial scheduling dates.


Summaries of

Starbuck v. Puget Sound Energy Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Sep 25, 2023
2:23-cv-01237-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sep. 25, 2023)
Case details for

Starbuck v. Puget Sound Energy Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARILYN STARBUCK; Steven Shaw as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Sep 25, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-01237-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sep. 25, 2023)