Opinion
Anna Y. Park, Sue Noh, Rumduol Vuong, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
UNOPPOSED EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; DECLARATION; ORDER
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff EEOC submits the following unopposed ex parte motion to continue the mandatory scheduling conference and attendant deadlines.
On August 5, 2015, the EEOC filed the instant action against Defendants Magnolia Health Corporation ("Magnolia"), Twin Oaks Assisted Living, Inc., Twin Oaks Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., Porterville Convalescent, Inc., Browning Manor, Inc., Kaweah Manor, Inc., and Merritt Manor, Inc. ( See Docket No. 1).
On August 6, 2015, the Court issued an order setting the mandatory scheduling conference for November 10, 2015. (Docket No. 4). Pursuant to that Order, the joint scheduling report is due on November 3, 2015 and the parties must meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) by October 20, 2015.
On September 15, 2015, the EEOC sent Defendants Magnolia, et al. a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons. (Vuong Dec. at ¶ 3). Pursuant to Rule 4(d)(3) "[a] defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent." Fed.R.Civ.P 4(d)(3). Defense counsel, Shirley Deutsch, has stated that Defendants will likely agree to waive the service of summons, thereby rendering the deadline for Defendants to submit responsive pleading to November 16, 2015. (Vuong Dec. at ¶ 4).
Good cause exists to continue the mandatory scheduling conference for thirty (30) days. Initially, Defendants do not oppose a thirty (30) day extension but are unable to agree to a joint stipulation as they have yet to appear in the case. (Vuong Dec. at ¶ 4). Further, as Defendants' answer will likely be due on November 16, 2015, the parties would be unable to complete either the joint scheduling report or participate in the Rule 26(f) conference, which are both prerequisites to the mandatory scheduling conference. Additionally, responsive pleadings by Defendants will illuminate several critical issues, including what affirmative defenses Defendants will raise and thus the scope of discovery. Moreover, the requested continuance will not result in any undue delay or prejudice to either party as Defendants have not yet appeared in this case; indeed, the continuance of the mandatory scheduling conference would permit the Defendants to meaningfully participate in those proceedings.
Accordingly, the EEOC requests that this Court continue the mandatory scheduling conference, which is currently set for November 10, 2015 for a period of thirty (30) days.
ORDER
FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT
The initial scheduling conference shall be moved to December 10, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall conduct their conference by or on November 19, 2015 and their joint scheduling report shall be due to the Court on December 3, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.