Novak v. City of Merced

Full title: NANCY JUNE NOVAK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MERCED, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division

Date published: Feb 4, 2015

1:13-CV-01402-BAM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2015)

Opinion

          Timothy V. Magill, Esq., MAGILL LAW OFFICES, Attorney for Plaintiff, NANCY JUNE NOVAK.

          Douglas Charles Smith, Esq., SMITH LAW OFFICES, Attorney for Defendants, THE MENTOR NEWTWORK, LOYD'S LIBERTY HOMES CHRISTINA TRIGG and JOELLA BREWER.

          Dale Long Allen, Jr., Esq., ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD, WERTH, Attorney for Defendants, MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER RASMUSSEN, SGT STRUBLE, and OFFICER CHAVEZ.

          AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES' STIPULATION (DOC. 38) IN PART

          BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, NANCY JUNE NOVAK, by and through her attorney of record, Timothy V. Magill, Esq. of Magill Law Offices in Fresno, California, and Defendants, THE MENTOR NETWORK, LOYD'S LIBERTY HOMES, CHRISTINA TRIGG, and JOELLA BREWER, by and through their attorney for record, Douglas C. Smith, Esq. of Riverside, California, and Defendants, MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER RASMUSSEN, SGT. STRUBLE, and OFFICER CHAVEZ, by and through their attorney of record, Dale Long Allen, Jr., Esq. of San Francisco, California, hereby Stipulate and agree to extend the Briefing Schedule filed May 8, 2014, by sixty (60) days, as listed below:

Current

         ORDER

         The parties' stipulation filed on February 3, 2015 (Doc. 38) outlined above is adopted by the Court IN PART. The new deadlines are outlined as follows:

         The parties are advised that at this stage of the proceedings extension of the non-dispositive motion deadline as proposed is unnecessary. Non-expert and expert discovery deadlines have been extended and the associated motions to compel are tied to these deadlines. Compliance with these non-expert and expert discovery deadlines requires motions to compel be filed and heard sufficiently in advance of the cutoff so that the Court may grant effective relief within the allotted discovery time. A party's failure to have a discovery dispute heard sufficiently in advance of the discovery cutoff may result in denial of the motion as untimely.

         Additionally, all other pre-trial motions must be filed no later than June 15, 2015, so that the Court has sufficient time to rule on the motions prior to the pretrial conference August 26, 2015.

         All of other orders contained in this Court's scheduling order issued on May 8, 2014 (Doc. 36) remain in full force and effect.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.