Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington

W.D. Washington

Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided March 18, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-05182·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KAREN L. REED and MICHAEL F. CASE NO. 19-cv-5182-RJB ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION TO v. CONTINUE PRETRIAL CITY OF VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Pretrial Deadlines (“Motion”). Dkt. 29. The Court is familiar with the Motion and the remainder of the record herein. For the reasons set forth below, the Parties’ Motion should be granted. The Parties’ Motion stipulates to and jointly requests an extension of the pretrial deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The Motion provides that “[t]he parties request that any pending pretrial deadlines be continued until the current Covid-19 state of emergency passes, at which point the parties will jointly propose a revised schedule of pretrial deadlines and a new trial date for consideration by the Court.” Dkt. 29, at 2. The Parties explain that “[g]ood cause exists for this extension because the parties had to cancel scheduled depositions … for reasons related to the Covid-19 state of emergency. The delay in taking these depositions will impact upcoming deadlines in the case schedule, such as the April 7 deadline for filing dispositive motions.” Dkt. 29, at 1–2.

A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Here, the Parties have shown good cause for a modification of the case schedule. THEREFORE, the Parties’ Motion is GRANTED as follows: the Court shall issue an approximate 90-day extension to the deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The extended deadlines will be detailed in a forthcoming scheduling order to be generated by the clerk.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 18th day of March, 2020. A

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KAREN L. REED and MICHAEL F. CASE NO. 19-cv-5182-RJB ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION TO v. CONTINUE PRETRIAL CITY OF VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Pretrial Deadlines (“Motion”). Dkt. 29. The Court is familiar with the Motion and the remainder of the record herein. For the reasons set forth below, the Parties’ Motion should be granted. The Parties’ Motion stipulates to and jointly requests an extension of the pretrial deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The Motion provides that “[t]he parties request that any pending pretrial deadlines be continued until the current Covid-19 state of emergency passes, at which point the parties will jointly propose a revised schedule of pretrial deadlines and a new trial date for consideration by the Court.” Dkt. 29, at 2. The Parties explain that “[g]ood cause exists for this extension because the parties had to cancel scheduled depositions … for reasons related to the Covid-19 state of emergency. The delay in taking these depositions will impact upcoming deadlines in the case schedule, such as the April 7 deadline for filing dispositive motions.” Dkt. 29, at 1–2.

A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Here, the Parties have shown good cause for a modification of the case schedule. THEREFORE, the Parties’ Motion is GRANTED as follows: the Court shall issue an approximate 90-day extension to the deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The extended deadlines will be detailed in a forthcoming scheduling order to be generated by the clerk.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 18th day of March, 2020. A

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge

Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington (Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related