Antonio Poipao and Linda Poipao v. County of El Dorado
This text of Antonio Poipao and Linda Poipao v. County of El Dorado (Antonio Poipao and Linda Poipao v. County of El Dorado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 JOEL P. GUMBINER (111586) BARTLETT H. WILLIAMS (333908) 2 WILLIAMS & GUMBINER LLP 1010 B Street, Suite 200 3 San Rafael, CA 94901 4 Phone: (415) 755-1880 Joel@insuredlaw.com 5 bart@insuredlaw.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANTONIO POIPAO and LINDA POIPAO 7
8 Andrew T. Caulfield (SBN 238300) Joe Little (SBN 322179) 9 CAULFIELD LAW FIRM 1101 Investment Blvd., Suite120 10 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Tel: (916) 933-3200 11 Fax: (916) 605-4075 12 Andrew@caulfieldlawfirm.com Joe@caulfieldlawfirm.com 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 COUNTY OF EL DORADO 15
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 ANTONIO POIPAO and LINDA POIPAO, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01265-CKD
19 Plaintiffs,
20 STIPULATED REQUEST TO FILE SECOND vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT; BIFURCATE 21 AND MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING COUNTY OF EL DORADO, ORDER 22 Defendant. [PROPOSED ORDER] 23 24 25 26 27 1 I. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs, ANTONIO POIPAO 3 and LINDA POIPAO (hereinafter Plaintiffs), and Defendant, COUNTY OF EL DORADO 4 (hereinafter Defendant) (collectively “Parties”) by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby 5 stipulate to allow Plaintiffs to amend the Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1. By 6 stipulating to leave for Plaintiffs’ to file the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant does not waive 7 its right to move to dismiss all, or part of, the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12. 8 FRCP 16(b)(4) allows a “party may amend its pleading only with the opposing parties written 9 consent. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 10 Here, Plaintiffs, in the investigation, discovery and expert work in this case have identified the 11 causes of the mudslide at issue in this action, that were unknown to Plaintiffs at the time of filing the 12 First Amended Complaint. 13 Since this Stipulated Request to Amend the Complaint is supported by good cause, the Parties 14 hereby respectfully request that this Court allow Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint 15 attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit 1. 16 II. BIFURCATION 17 The Parties further stipulate to bifurcate the trial so that the issue of liability on Plaintiff’s First 18 Cause of Action for Fifth Amendment Taking and Second Cause of Action for California inverse 19 condemnation be tried first. Liability for inverse condemnation is tried to the Court. Marshall v. Dep't 20 of Water & Power (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1124, 1141. The Parties anticipate that the bench trial on 21 liability will likely last three to four days. The remainder of the case, including liability on the tort 22 causes and damages could be tried later to the jury. The Parties agree that this phasing of the trial 23 promotes judicial economy and may provide the Parties time to settle the case and/or prepare for the 24 more time-consuming jury trial in the second phase according to the schedule stipulated below in the 25 Modified Scheduling Order. 26 27 /// -2- 1 III. MODIFY PRETRIAL ORDER 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 143 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 16(b)(4), Parties 3 hereby stipulate and request this Court to issue an Order to modify the Court’s scheduling Order (ECF 4 No. 35) (hereinafter “Order”) for case 2:23-cv-01265-CKD, by extending the dates for discovery and 5 related deadlines from the dates given in the Parties’ Stipulated Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling 6 Order; [Order], dated May 1, 2025. 7 FRCP 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a scheduling order upon a showing of “good cause.” 8 According to the Ninth Circuit Court, the “good cause” standard required is primarily concerned with 9 the diligence taken by the party seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 10 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A court may modify the scheduling order should the given deadlines 11 not be reasonably able to be met, despite diligent efforts. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 12 608 (E.D. CA 1999). 13 Since Plaintiffs retained new counsel, they have discovered that the project identified in the 14 original Complaint and First Amended Complaint did not cause their damages. Plaintiffs now contend 15 that a 2012-2013 fencing project at the Airport caused their damages as set forth in the Second 16 Amended Complaint. Defendant will need to file its responsive pleading to the Second Amended 17 Complaint and have the opportunity to conduct discovery relating to this new theory of liability. 18 Additionally, the Parties participated in mediation on November 6, 2025, which was unsuccessful. The 19 Parties may schedule a second mediation session after additional discovery. The remainder of time left 20 open for discovery under the Order is not sufficient to allow the Parties to continue to conduct 21 meaningful discovery in this case, possibly participate in a second mediation, and informally resolve 22 their disagreements about the substance of discovery responses that are still at issue. 23 Since this Stipulated Request to Modify the Pretrial Order is supported by good cause, the 24 Parties hereby respectfully request that this Court modify the Pretrial Order by extending the fact and 25 expert discovery deadlines in its May 1, 2025, Order. This would result in the following new 26 deadlines: 27 -3- 1 • Non-expert discovery shall be completed by April 15, 2026; 2 • Any expert witnesses shall be disclosed by April 1, 2026; 3 • Any rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made by April 15, 2026; 4 • All expert discovery shall be completed by May 15, 2026; • All law and motion, except as to discovery-related matters, shall be completed (i.e. 5 heard) by July 1, 2026; 6 • Bifurcated three to four day bench trial on liability portion of Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for Fifth Amendment Taking and Second Cause of Action for California inverse 7 condemnation on July 13, 2026 and 8 • Jury trial on remaining issues on October 1, 2026.
9 Dated: November 19, 2025 WILLIAMS & GUMBINER LLP 10
11 __________/s/___Bartlett H. Williams__ 12 Bartlett H. Williams Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 Antonio Poipao and Linda Poipao
15 Dated: November 19, 2025 CAULFIELD LAW FIRM 16
17 ___________/s/_Andrew T. Caulfield__ Andrew T. Caulfield 18 Attorneys for Defendant County of El Dorado 19
21 G:\CLIENT DOCUMENTS\Poipao, Antonio and Linda\Pleadings\Stipulation\2025-11-18 Stipulated Request For Leave to Amend.doc
27 -4- 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 WITH MODIFICATION BY THE COURT 3 4 Pursuant to the Stipulation regarding the Parties’ request to allow Plaintiffs to Amend the First 5 Amended Complaint, and good cause appearing, the Court approves the Stipulation and allows 6 Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1.
The liability portion of Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for Fifth Amendment Taking and 8 Second Cause of Action for California inverse condemnation will be bifurcated and heard at a three t 9 four day bench trial. 10 11 This 1s the Parties’ third request to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Pursuant to the 12 Stipulation and good cause appearing, the Court approves the Stipulation and further modifies the 13 Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Antonio Poipao and Linda Poipao v. County of El Dorado, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonio-poipao-and-linda-poipao-v-county-of-el-dorado-caed-2025.