Opinion
3:21-cv-00463-BEN-LL
10-04-2021
TYLER ASTORGA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; KEVIN BOEGLER, in his individual capacity, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE
[ECF NO. 11]
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tyler Astorga, an individual (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against Defendants the County of San Diego, and Kevin Boegler, in his individual capacity (“Deputy Boegler”) (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Continue the Hearing Date on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (the “Joint Motion”). ECF No. 11. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART the Joint Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
This case is one of three cases filed in the Southern District pertaining to the Black Lives Matter protests that took place on May 20, 2020, in La Mesa, California. A more detailed history was set out in the Court's previous order and is incorporated by reference herein. See Astorga v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 3:21-cv-00463-BEN-LL, 2021 WL 2826017, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2021).
As relates to the instant Joint Motion, on June 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). ECF No. 6. Then, on July 6, 2021, the Court denied Deputy Boegler's previous Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5-1, as moot, while noting all Doe defendants in this case needed to be dismissed. Order, ECF No. 8.
Pursuant to its previous order, ECF No. 8, the Doe defendants in this case have been terminated, and the parties should update their captions accordingly.
On September 9, 2021, in response to the FAC, the County filed its own Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, arguing that the claims pled against it either failed to immunity or insufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. ECF No. 9-1. Meanwhile, on September 28, 2021, because the FAC responded to all issues raised in his Motion to Dismiss, Deputy Boegler filed an answer to the FAC. ECF No. 10.
On September 30, 2021, the parties filed the instant Joint Motion, seeking to Continue the hearing date on the County's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 11 at 1:24-27.
III. ORDER
The parties jointly request the extension based on the press of business and family medical issues that interfere with the current briefing schedule. Joint Motion at 2:1-3. They seek to continue the hearing date to October 25, 2021, so that Plaintiffs Opposition Brief will be due on October 11, 2021, and Defendant's Reply Brief will be due on October 18, 2021. Id. at 2:5-8. The Court finds good cause exists for the extension. However, because the Court finds this matter appropriate for submission on the papers, the Court DENIES the Parties' request to continue the hearing but GRANTS the Parties' request to continue the briefing deadlines. Plaintiffs Opposition Brief will be due on October 11, 2021, and Defendant's Reply Brief will be due on October 18, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.