Opinion
Case No.: 1:10-cv-01541-AWI-SKO
10-27-2011
CHANG BEE YANG, an individual; and LAU YANG, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.
SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation BY: John B. Sullivan, Esq. Austin B. Kenney, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., erroneously sued herein as SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC. WEBB & WALTON, LLP BY: Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHANG BEE YANG and LAU YANG
JOHN B. SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 96742)
AUSTIN B. KENNEY (State Bar No. 242277)
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys for Defendant
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
erroneously sued herein as SUN TRUST
MORTGAGE, INC.
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES
Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto
TO THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiffs, CHANG BEE YANG and LAU YANG ("Plaintiffs"), and defendant, SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. ("SunTrust"), erroneously sued herein as SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC., hereby stipulate to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for November 15, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. until such time as this case is at issue. The parties also stipulate to continue all related dates specified by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26, to coincide with the new conference date.
On September 27, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request to continue the scheduling conference set for October 13, 2011, to January 10, 2012 in light of the fact that the case was not yet at issue. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiffs previously filed a Third Amended Complaint, but SunTrust was not due to respond until October 12. This Court determined that it was "premature" to continue the scheduling conference until January, particularly in light of the fact that this case has been pending for over a year. (Doc. 56.) Instead, the Court granted a continuance to November 15 "[t]o allow sufficient time for SunTrust to file a responsive pleading" to the operative complaint." (Ibid.) The Court advised, "Should the need arise for an additional continuance of the scheduling conference, the parties may request one at that time. Such a request should set for reasons for any continuance sought." (Ibid.)
The parties believe there is good cause to continue the scheduling conference because the case is still not at issue. SunTrust filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint on October 12, and that motion will not be heard until November 21, after the date set for the scheduling conference.
The parties have already exchanged Initial Disclosure Statements and submitted a Joint Scheduling Report and discovery plan to the Court. However, some of dates in the report may need to be changed (or eliminated entirely) based on the disposition of SunTrust's pending motion. If the motion is denied, SunTrust will likely file a summary judgment motion, and the Court and the parties will need to schedule. On the other hand, if the motion is granted with leave to amend, the case will still not be at issue.
The parties respectfully submit it would not be effective use of their or the Court's time and resources to hold a scheduling conference before the pleadings have been resolved. Once the pleadings are resolved, the parties will be in a better position to confer and agree upon scheduling, ADR and related case management issues.
Thus, the parties respectfully request that the scheduling conference be continued until such time as SunTrust's pending motion is decided and the pleadings are resolved (if SunTrust's motion is denied in any respect). The parties can be available on January 10, 2012, or on another mutually-agreeable date thereafter.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
BY: John B. Sullivan, Esq.
Austin B. Kenney, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., erroneously
sued herein as SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC.
WEBB & WALTON, LLP
BY: Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHANG BEE YANG and LAU YANG
ORDER
Based on the Stipulation of the Parties and for Good Cause Shown, it is Hereby Ordered that the Scheduling Conference in this matter currently scheduled for November 15, 2011, is continued to January 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE