Opinion
2:22-cv-01745-MJP
05-08-2024
MAJID ALFARAG, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, Defendant.
TESSA M. GORMAN United States Attorney REBECCA S. COHEN, Majid Alfarag ALIXANDRIA K. MORRIS, TX No. Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney's Office Western District of Washington Pro Se Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant DeJoy
TESSA M. GORMAN
United States Attorney
REBECCA S. COHEN, Majid Alfarag
ALIXANDRIA K. MORRIS, TX No.
Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorney's Office
Western District of Washington Pro Se Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendant DeJoy
STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND CORRESPONDING MODIFICATION OF CASE SCHEDULE
MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
As a result of Plaintiff's request for more time to search for legal representation, the parties hereby STIPULATE, AGREE and JOINTLY REQUEST an order extending the response and corresponding reply deadlines for Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by 60 days modifying the deadlines set forth in the Court's July 21, 2023, Order Setting Trial and Related Dates (Dkt. 22), as follows:
Deadline
Current Deadline
Proposed New Deadline
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleading due by
5/13/2024
7/15/2024
Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings due by
5/17/2024
7/19/2024
Discovery completed by
5/20/2024
7/19/2024
All dispositive motions must be filed by
6/17/2024
8/16/2024
In addition, the parties ask the Court to set a new trial date of no earlier than December 16, 2024, with all trial related deadlines set corresponding to the new trial date. The parties have set forth their current scheduling conflicts below: Plaintiff: Defendant: December 26, 2024-January 3, 2023; January 14-20, 2023; February 24-March 11, 2023; April 14-18, 20203; May 12-13, 2023.
A court may modify a schedule for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Continuing pretrial and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. King v. State of California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). Good cause exists for extending the specific deadlines noted above, as Plaintiff is requesting additional time to respond to Defendant's Motion in order to seek counsel. Defendant joins in the request in order to provide Plaintiff sufficient time.
SO STIPULATED.
I certify that this memorandum contains 258 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' motion is GRANTED.