Yang v. County of Yuba

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00066
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1|}/PORTER SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3 || clessenden @porterscott.com Matthew W. Gross, SBN 324007 4 mgross @ porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 5 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 6 || FAX: 916.927.3706 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 || COUNTY OF YUBA, SERGEANT ARBJIT SINGH KANDOLA, SERGEANT JEFFREY T. PALMER, and ISMAEL RAMOS 9 || Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 10 UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT I EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 || CHUE DOA YANG et al., CASE NO, 2:23-cv-00066-TLN-JDP 14 Plaintiffs, FIRST STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 15 AMEND INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING v. ORDER (DKT. 4) 16 17 || COUNTY OF YUBA et al., SAC: 7/5/24 18 FAC: 10/16/23 Defendants. Complaint Filed: 01/11/2023 19 / 20 21 22 Plaintiffs and Defendants (“the parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, and 23 || subject to the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate as follows: 24 RECITALS 25 1. This case involves the death of Tong Yang who died of suicide at the Yuba County Jail. 26 || The operative complaint in this case is the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed the Second 27 || Amended Complaint (SAC) on July 5, 2024. Dkt. 44. Defendants Wellpath, LLC, Christina Boets, MFT, 28 || and Taylor Fithian, M.D., filed an answer to the SAC on July 19, 2024. Dkt. 52.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

1 2. On July 25, 2024, Defendants County of Yuba, Jeffery Palmer and Ismael Ramos filed 2 their motion to dismiss the SAC. Dkt. 53. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 8, 2024. Dkt. 54. 3 3. On November 15, 2024, Wellpath, LLC, filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of 4 stay. Dkt. 57. Wellpath subsequently filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of stay. Dkt. 5 60. 6 4. This Court issued a minute order on November 15, 2024, stating that the matter was stayed 7 as the Debtor, but could proceed against other Defendants. Dkt. 58. 8 5. The Court ruled on the motion to dismiss on December 3, 2024, granting in part and 9 denying in part the County Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 59. The County Defendants filed their answer to the 10 SAC on December 23, 2024. Dkt. 61. 11 6. In accordance with the Court’s order (dkt. 58), Plaintiffs and the County Defendants have 12 exchanged written discovery and proceeded with this case. Although Plaintiffs and the Wellpath 13 Defendants had exchanged written discovery requests, all such discovery was stayed as of November 15, 14 2024. 15 7. On May 1, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas 16 confirmed the bankruptcy plan for the debtor Wellpath. Dkt. 2596 in case no. 24-90533. The automatic 17 stay lapsed after the effective date of the bankruptcy plan, which was May 9, 2025. Dkt. 2680. 18 8. As a result of the bankruptcy case, Plaintiffs learned that a separate, but related, Wellpath 19 entity called California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), was the contracting party in this case that 20 provided medical and mental health services at the Yuba County Jail. CFMG is a professional corporation 21 that is not a “debtor” subject to the Wellpath bankruptcy. Plaintiffs will seek leave to file an amended 22 complaint that joins CFMG as a real party in interest, either via a stipulation or motion. 23 9. On June 3, 2025, the parties conducted a supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference to 24 discuss the status of this case after termination of the Wellpath bankruptcy stay. 25 10. The parties have met and conferred regarding the Scheduling Order (dkt. 4), and the parties 26 believe certain dates will not give the parties sufficient time to investigate the issues in the case, conduct 27 discovery, and prepare for trial. 28 11. Discovery in this case is anticipated to take additional time. There are nine (9) individual 1 plaintiffs in this case. Due to the number of parties, and the logistical challenges of coordinating among 2 counsel and the parties, the parties will require additional time to conduct discovery. Moreover, the written 3 discovery at issue is anticipated to be voluminous; it will be comprised of thousands of pages and will 4 constitute many gigabytes of data (for video and other digital materials). 5 12. When an act must be done within a specified time, the Court may, for good cause, extend 6 the time with or without motion if the court acts, or a request is made, before the original time expires. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). With respect to an order setting forth the Court’s pretrial schedule, “[t]he 8 district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the 9 party seeking the amendment.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 13. The parties have diligently conducted discovery in this case, despite delays and challenges 11 caused by the bankruptcy proceedings. As a practical matter, the bankruptcy proceedings effectively 12 prevented any depositions from going forward because, without the participation and attendance of 13 counsel for the Wellpath, LLC Defendants, the Wellpath Defendants would have had the ability to re- 14 notice any deposition that was conducted while the bankruptcy stay was in effect. This would not only 15 subject deponents and parties to a possible additional deposition, but it would pose needless costs on the 16 parties and increase the attorney time. Consequently, no depositions were held while the bankruptcy stay 17 was in effect. The parties have not sought any prior modification of the Scheduling Order. 18 STIPULATION 19 14. Based on the foregoing, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, 20 respectfully request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 21 22 Case Event Current Deadline (dkt. Proposed Amended Deadline No. 4) 23 Fact discovery cut-off August 21, 2025 June 5, 2026 Expert disclosures October 20, 2025 August 7, 2026 24 Rebuttal expert disclosures November 19, 2025 September 7, 2026 25 Expert discovery cut-off Not set October 9, 2026 Dispositive motion filing February 17, 2026 January 4, 2027 26 cut-off date 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dated: June 9, 2025 LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT, HELM LAW OFFICE, PC, and 2 GRACE JUN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 3 /s/ Grace Jun 4 By: GRACE JUN 5 Sanjay S. Schmidt T. Kennedy Helm, IV 6 Grace Jun Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

8 Dated: June 9, 2025 PORTER SCOTT 9 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10 By /s/ Matthew W. Gross 11 Carl L. Fessenden 12 Matthew W. Gross Melissa Yoest 13 Attorneys for Defendants County Of Yuba and Ismael Ramos 14

16 Dated: June 9, 2025 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 17

18 By /s/ Lindsey Romano 19 Lindsey Romano Allison Becker 20 Attorneys for Defendants Wellpath, LLC, Christina Boets MFT, and Taylor Fithian, 21 M.D 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, rules as follows: 3 The relief the parties jointly request is GRANTED, and the scheduling order is modified as 4 follows: 5 3 ; 8 ? 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 |) DATED: June 10, 2025 Las 4 8 TROY L. NUNLEY 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SS STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER