Riley v. Ploutz

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJanuary 20, 2021
Docket1:20-cv-01177
StatusUnknown

This text of Riley v. Ploutz (Riley v. Ploutz) 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.

Bluebook
Riley v. Ploutz, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNA RILEY, in her capacity as the No. 1:20-cv-01177-DAD-EPG Treasurer-Tax Collector of Stanislaus 12 County, ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 13 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING CONTINUED 14 v. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 15 LLOYD G. PLOUTZ, et al., April 26, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. 16 Defendants. 17 18 On January 19, 2021, the Court held a telephonic initial scheduling conference. Counsel 19 Marc Hartley appeared for Plaintiff Donna Riley; Defendant Lloyd G. Ploutz appeared pro se; 20 counsel Colleen Frances Van Egmond appeared for Defendant Seeger Industries, Inc.; counsel 21 Michael Dyer appeared for Defendant William R. Morehead; counsel Isaac Hoenig appeared for 22 Defendant United States of America, Internal Revenue Service; and counsel David Mehretu 23 appeared for the City of Modesto.1 24 The action here concerns the excess proceeds of a tax sale in the amount of $168,533.44 25 (see, generally, ECF No. 6-9) (first amended complaint) and potential liabilities Defendant Ploutz 26 may owe to the federal government (ECF No. 15) (answer and cross-claim against Defendant 27 1 There are at least three crossclaims in this action. (ECF Nos. 6-14, 14, 15). To avoid prolix, all parties other than 28 Plaintiff Riley are referred to as a Defendant. 1 Ploutz by United States of America, Internal Revenue Service). 2 I. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE CONTINUED 3 In the interest of facilitating settlement and reducing legal fees, the Court declined to issue 4 a full scheduling order at this time. The Court continued the scheduling conference to April 26, 5 2021, at 1:30 p.m. 6 II. OPENING OF DISCOVERY 7 Discovery is now open. The following discusses procedures should the parties reach an 8 impasse concerning discovery. 9 A. Informal Discovery Conference 10 In order to file a discovery motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, a party must receive 11 permission from the Court following an informal telephone conference. A party wishing to 12 schedule such a conference should contact chambers to receive available dates. The Court will 13 schedule the conference as soon as possible, taking into consideration the urgency of the issue. 14 Before contacting the Court, the parties must meet and confer by speaking with each other in 15 person, over the telephone, or via video in an attempt to resolve the dispute. 16 Prior to the conference, both parties shall simultaneously submit letters, outlining their 17 respective positions regarding the dispute. The Court will provide the date the letters are due at 18 the time the conference is scheduled. Such letters shall be no longer than 3 pages single spaced, 19 and may include up to 5 pages of exhibits. Letters shall be emailed to Magistrate Judge 20 Grosjean’s chambers at epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov, and not filed on the docket. 21 The Court’s minute order setting the informal conference will advise the parties of the 22 Court’s toll-free conference line. Telephonic conferences will not be on the record and the Court 23 will not issue a formal ruling at that time. Nevertheless, the Court will attempt to provide 24 guidance to the parties to narrow or dispose of the dispute. If no resolution can be reached 25 without formal motion practice, the Court will authorize the filing of a formal discovery motion. 26 B. Discovery Motions 27 If a motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, after receiving permission from the 28 Court, the parties must prepare and file a Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement (“Joint 1 Statement”) as required by Local Rule 251.2 In scheduling such motions, Magistrate Judge 2 Grosjean may grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). 3 Motions to shorten time will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. If a party does not 4 obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. 5 A Joint Statement, not to exceed 25 pages, must be filed seven (7) calendar days before 6 the scheduled hearing date. Prior to the filing of the Joint Statement, the parties must meet and 7 confer as set forth in Local Rule 251(b). In addition to filing the Joint Statement electronically, a 8 copy of the Joint Statement in Word format must be sent to Magistrate Judge Grosjean’s 9 chambers via email to epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Courtesy copies for any pleading in excess 10 of twenty-five pages (including exhibits) shall also be delivered to chambers via US mail, or hand 11 delivery, at the time the Joint Statement is electronically filed. Motions may be removed from the 12 Court’s calendar if the Joint Statement is not timely filed, or if courtesy copies are not timely 13 delivered. 14 III. STIPULATIONS OF DISMISSAL 15 For the reasons discussed on the records, the Court will order the parties to file 16 stipulations of dismissal as to Plaintiff Riley and Defendants City of Modesto and State of 17 California Franchise Tax Board no later than February 19, 2021 in accordance with Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 41(a). 19 At the hearing, the parties discussed Defendant City of Modesto’s earlier stipulation and 20 proposed order for dismissal with prejudice, (ECF No. 11). The Court notes that certain stipulated 21 dismissals under Rule 41(a) are automatic. See Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 22 F.3d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he district court has no role to play once a notice of 23 dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is filed. The action is terminated at that point, as if no action had 24 ever been filed.”). However, the filed stipulation requested court relief beyond mere dismissal 25 from the action. (See ECF No. 11 at 2) (“Plaintiff, the IRS, and Seeger Industries shall be 26 discharged and relieved of any further liability to Modesto in connection with this action, the 27 property at issue, and the Modesto Claim.”). The proposed order contained similar language. (See

28 2 Certain limited exceptions from filing the required Joint Statement are outlined in Local Rule 251(e). 1 id. at 4). 2 Any stipulation of dismissal that requests the Court to enter an order granting relief 3 beyond dismissal may be beyond the reaches of the Court’s powers under Rule 41(a)(1). See 4 Commercial Space Mgmt., 193 F.3d at 1077 n.4 (citing with approval Gardiner v. A.H. Robins 5 Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1190 (8th Cir.1984) as “noting Rule 41(a)(1) ‘contains no exceptions that 6 call for the exercise of judicial discretion by any court’ and invalidating district court’s entry of 7 ‘So Ordered’ notation on parties' Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) stipulated dismissal”); cf. Hinsdale v. Farmers 8 Nat. Bank & Tr. Co., 823 F.2d 993, 995–96 and n.1&2 (6th Cir. 1987) (discussing power district 9 courts have in connection with Rule 41(a) stipulations of dismissal and, noting where stipulation 10 of dismissal included reference to settlement agreement, court could not enter order retaining 11 jurisdiction to enforce such settlement agreement). Thus, any orders requiring relief beyond mere 12 dismissal—such as an order concerning the City of Modesto’s liability to other parties—may 13 require a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2), and they may require action by the district judge, 14 see 28 U.S.C. § 636. 15 IV. PLEADING DEADLINES 16 The Court also addressed several issues with the parties’ pleadings and responses.

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

Related

Federal Deposit Insurance v. S & I 85-1, Ltd.
22 F.3d 1070 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)
Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co.
747 F.2d 1180 (Eighth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Riley v. Ploutz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-ploutz-caed-2021.