Opinion
1:19-cv-01178-NONE-EPG (PC)
09-30-2021
KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. S. VILLARREAL, Defendant.
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF NO. 58)
On September 17, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order Pending Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 55). On September 21, 2021, the Court granted the motion in part, vacated all dates and dates except the deadlines related to Defendant's motion to dismiss, and noted that it “may reset the vacated dates and deadlines prior to the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss.” (ECF No. 56).
On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff argues that Defendant's motion to dismiss is frivolous and that Defendant is trying to manipulate the scheduling order to gain a tactical advantage. Plaintiff also alleges that the motion to stay is prejudicial toward Plaintiff.
Plaintiff provides no evidence or legal arguments to support his assertion that the motion to dismiss is frivolous and that Defendant is trying to manipulate the Court.
Accordingly, even had Plaintiff filed his opposition before the Court granted Defendant's motion to stay in part, it would not have changed the analysis. Therefore, the Court will not reconsider its ruling granting in part Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order pending the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 56)
However, the Court once again notes that it may reset the vacated dates and deadlines prior to the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss, including after review of Plaintiff s opposition to the motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.