Opinion
MARK D. LITVACK #183652, JAMES CHANG, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.
Tamany Vinson Bentz, Ben D. Whitwell, Tamany Vinson Bentz, VENABLE LLP, Attorneys for Defendant. Chiang Fang Chi-yi; Chiang Tsai Hui-mei; Chiang Yu-sung; Chiang Yo-lan; Chiang Yo-bo; Chiang Yo-chang; Chiang Yo-ching.
Shari Mulrooney Wollman, MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP, Attorneys for Defendant, Chiang Yo-mei (a/k/a Yo-mei Chiang).
Edward Romero, GREENAN, PEFFER, SALLANDER & LALLY LLP, Attorneys for Defendant, Academia Historica Defendant Chungyan Chan.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND CONFERENCE [Civ. L. Rule 6-2]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Chiang Fang Chi-yi, Chiang Tsai Hui-mei, Chiang Yo-sung, Chiang Yo-lan, Chiang Yo-ching, Chiang Yo-mei (also known as Yo-mei Chiang), Chungyan Chan and Academia Historica stipulate and agree and respectfully request that the Court reset the date for the Case Management Statement and the Case Management Conference until a sufficient time after the Court has ruled upon Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 47) and all Defendants have been served and have had a proper time to file a response to the Complaint. The parties do hereby stipulate to the following:
1. This case involves claims to the papers and diaries of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo.
2. All but one of the purported claimants to this material resides outside of the United States.
3. Presently the Case Management Conference is set for July 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM.
4. Presently one of the Defendants, Academia Historica, pursuant to a stipulation approved by this Court, has until July 18, 2014 to respond to the First Amended Complaint.
5. As of June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint to add additional claimants to this Interpleader Action.
6. Plaintiff's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint has been scheduled to be heard by this Court on August 14, 2014.
7. As such, all of the Defendants will not be served with the applicable pleadings before that date and until well after the present date for the Case Management Conference.
8. The presently served Defendants cannot adequately prepare for a Case Management Conference until they know which persons or entities will be making a claim to all or part of the Diaries and/or Papers which are the subject of this Action.
9. This Court has previously recognized the need for all Defendants to be served prior to its holding of the Case Management Conference and thus delayed this Conference once on its own Motion ( see Dkt. 22) and once based upon the motion of Plaintiff ( see Dkt. 39) after this Court had sua sponte set a Case Management Conference date upon re-assignment of this matter to its present Judge.
10. Plaintiff represents to this Court and to the other parties to this Stipulation that the parties it now seeks to add to this Interpleader Action in its proposed Second Amended Complaint had not filed any claim regarding the Diaries and/or other Papers that are the subject of this Action with Plaintiff prior to the filing of the First Amended Complaint and prior to the setting of the Case Management Conference by this Court.
11. All parties believe that it is more efficient and time effective to have all claimants before this Court at the time of the Case Management Conference and that justice requires this in order for each Defendant to adequately prepare his, her or its position on the various issues in a Case Management Conference Statement prior to their filing of such.
12. Plaintiff further stipulates and agrees that subject to the approval of this court, no Defendant needs to respond to the First Amended Complaint. Instead, presently appearing counsel are each duly authorized to accept service of the Second Amended Complaint. In order for all Defendants to adequately respond to the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff and all represented Defendants agree that each Defendant shall have 30 days from the date of service to respond to the Second Amended Complaint.
ORDER
Having considered the Parties stipulation for an order resetting the date for the filing of the Joint Case Management Statement and the Case Management Conference, and finding good cause therefore:
It is HEREBY ORDERED that the date for filing the Joint Case Management Statement and the Joint Case Management Conference are hereby postponed and will be reset after this Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants need not respond to the First Amended Complaint at this time. Rather each Defendant shall have up to and including 30 days to respond to the applicable complaint after the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint and service thereof.
IT IS SO ORDERED.