Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington

W.D. Washington

Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington

DecidedMarch 18, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-05182

StatusUnknown

This text of Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington (Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KAREN L. REED and MICHAEL F. CASE NO. 19-cv-5182-RJB 11 REED, ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ 12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION TO v. CONTINUE PRETRIAL 13 DEADLINES CITY OF VANCOUVER, 14 WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue 18 Pretrial Deadlines (“Motion”). Dkt. 29. The Court is familiar with the Motion and the remainder 19 of the record herein. For the reasons set forth below, the Parties’ Motion should be granted. 20 The Parties’ Motion stipulates to and jointly requests an extension of the pretrial 21 deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The Motion 22 provides that “[t]he parties request that any pending pretrial deadlines be continued until the 23 current Covid-19 state of emergency passes, at which point the parties will jointly propose a 24 1 revised schedule of pretrial deadlines and a new trial date for consideration by the Court.” Dkt. 2 29, at 2. The Parties explain that “[g]ood cause exists for this extension because the parties had 3 to cancel scheduled depositions … for reasons related to the Covid-19 state of emergency. The 4 delay in taking these depositions will impact upcoming deadlines in the case schedule, such as 5 the April 7 deadline for filing dispositive motions.” Dkt. 29, at 1–2.

6 A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 7 control its own docket. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005); Clinton v. 8 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 9 (1936)). 10 Here, the Parties have shown good cause for a modification of the case schedule. 11 THEREFORE, the Parties’ Motion is GRANTED as follows: the Court shall issue an 12 approximate 90-day extension to the deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and 13 Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The extended deadlines will be detailed in a forthcoming scheduling 14 order to be generated by the clerk.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 17 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 18 Dated this 18th day of March, 2020. A 19

20 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 21

23 24

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

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KAREN L. REED and MICHAEL F. CASE NO. 19-cv-5182-RJB 11 REED, ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ 12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION TO v. CONTINUE PRETRIAL 13 DEADLINES CITY OF VANCOUVER, 14 WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue 18 Pretrial Deadlines (“Motion”). Dkt. 29. The Court is familiar with the Motion and the remainder 19 of the record herein. For the reasons set forth below, the Parties’ Motion should be granted. 20 The Parties’ Motion stipulates to and jointly requests an extension of the pretrial 21 deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The Motion 22 provides that “[t]he parties request that any pending pretrial deadlines be continued until the 23 current Covid-19 state of emergency passes, at which point the parties will jointly propose a 24 1 revised schedule of pretrial deadlines and a new trial date for consideration by the Court.” Dkt. 2 29, at 2. The Parties explain that “[g]ood cause exists for this extension because the parties had 3 to cancel scheduled depositions … for reasons related to the Covid-19 state of emergency. The 4 delay in taking these depositions will impact upcoming deadlines in the case schedule, such as 5 the April 7 deadline for filing dispositive motions.” Dkt. 29, at 1–2.

6 A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 7 control its own docket. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005); Clinton v. 8 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 9 (1936)). 10 Here, the Parties have shown good cause for a modification of the case schedule. 11 THEREFORE, the Parties’ Motion is GRANTED as follows: the Court shall issue an 12 approximate 90-day extension to the deadlines set forth in the Minute Order Setting Trial and 13 Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 17). The extended deadlines will be detailed in a forthcoming scheduling 14 order to be generated by the clerk.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 17 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 18 Dated this 18th day of March, 2020. A 19

20 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 21

23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reed v. City of Vancouver, Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-city-of-vancouver-washington-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack