History
  • No items yet
midpage
(PS) Schmitz v. Asman
2:20-cv-00195
| E.D. Cal. | May 1, 2024
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket
Case Information

DIANNE MALLIA 404 Atkinson Street Roseville, CA 95678 deedamallia@gmail.com tsfoot49@gmail.com Telephone: (707) 694-8158 Plaintiff , ProSe

ROB BONTA (State Bar No. 202668) Attorney General of California

JAY M. GOLDMAN (State Bar No. 168141) Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JENNIFER J. NYGAARD (State Bar No. 229494) Deputy Attorney General michael@beesonterhorst.com Sacramento, CA 95811 BEESON TERHORST LLP Telephone: 707-301-7504 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor maria.zhurnalova-juppunov@mcnamaralaw.com MARIA ZHURNALOVA-JUPPUNOV (State Bar No. 319004) peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com P.O. Box 70550 510 Bercut Drive, Suite V ERIC BRADLEY KEVIN KUICH and JOE A. LIZARRAGA MICHAEL A. TERHORST, SR. Attorneys for Defendants Fax: (510) 622-2270 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993) Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Attorneys for Defendant Telephone: (510) 879-0802 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077) Jennifer.Nygaard@doj.ca.gov daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com M C NAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP

639 Kentucky Street, Fairfield, CA 94533

Telephone: (707) 427-3998 Facsimile: (707) 427-0268 Attorneys for Defendants

ADAMS, ANDALUZ, ASHE, ASMAN, BRANMAN, BRIZENDINE, BROCKENBOROGH, CEBALLOS,

HEATLEY, J. JOHNSON, R. JOHNSON, PONCIANO, RAMKUMAR, REKART, ROBINSON, RUDAS, M. SMITH,

C. SMITH, TIEBROCK, TOCHE and WAINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA On behalf of Estate of WILLIAM Case No.: 2:20-CV-00195-DJC-CKD SCHMITZ, deceased, by and through THOMAS J. SCHMITZ and DIANNE STIPULATION TO MODIFY

MALLIA, as Successors in Interest; SCHEDULING ORDER ECF. NO. 286;

6 THOMAS SCHMITZ, Individually; and [PROPOSED] ORDER DIANNE MALLIA, Individually, Plaintiffs, Courtroom: 24

vs. Judge:

Hon. Carolyn K. Delaney Johnson, Ponciano, Ramkumar, Rekart, Robinson, Rudas, M. Smith, C. Smith, Tebrock, Toche, and Waine (“Defendants”) by and through their attorneys hereby agree and stipulate as follows: in this case, such that all non-expert discovery, except for any phase two discovery discussed below, Andaluz, Ashe, Asman, Branman, Brizendine, Brockenborogh, Ceballos, Heatley, J. Johnson, R. Proposed Schedule (EFC No. 283); ASMAN; et al., CDCR Correction Officer ADAM WHEREAS, on May 31, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Status Report with a mutually agreed , and defendants Bradley, Kuich, Lizarraga, Adams, WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting pre-trial dates pro se Plaintiff Dianne Mallia in Defendants. Action Filed: 1/27/2020

shall be completed by May 17, 2024; expert witness disclosures shall be completed by September

30, 2024 ; rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made no later than October 30, 2024 ; and all expert

discovery shall be completed by February 28, 2025 ; all law and motion, except as to discovery-

related matters, shall be completed (i.e. heard) by August 29, 2025 and the Court will set a schedule

for phase two discovery upon resolution of dispositive motions;

WHEREAS, the parties have continued to engage in written discovery and have updated

their written disclosures,

//// WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, counsel for Defendants were put on notice by plaintiff

2 Dianne Mallia regarding doubts as to plaintiff Dr. Thomas Schmitz’s capacity to proceed in this

3 litigation in pro se due to mental health issues;

4 Defense counsel served and filed a notice regarding the same on February 23, 2024. (ECF

5 No. 348.)

6 WHEREAS, on March 22, 2024, defendants filed an administrative motion under Local

7 Rule 233 seeking to stay the proceedings in this case pending a determination whether a substantial

8 question exists regarding plaintiff Schmitz’s competency to proceed pro se. (ECF No. 364) and and complete all fact discovery prior to the Court’s determination on the issue of Dr. Schmitz’s 366); made it impracticable and impossible for Plaintiff Mallia and Defendants to complete depositions Motion for Stay to the extent that the Court stayed discovery requiring responses or testimony by Plaintiff Mallia opposed the motion to the extent it requests a stay of all proceedings. (ECF No. and set a competency and defendants intend to depose Plaintiff Mallia; Rose Swift, Dr. Joseph Schmitz, as well as pro se hearing for May 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF 376); Plaintiff Dr. Thomas Schmitz, and potentially other facts witnesses; Dr. Schmitz, pending a determination of his competency to proceed WHEREAS, Plaintiff Mallia has advised of her intent to depose ten (10) named defendants WHEREAS, on April 26, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting in part Defendants’ WHEREAS, the unanticipated issue regarding Plaintiff Dr. Thomas Schmitz’s capacity has

21 capacity to proceed pro se , despite their due diligence;

22 WHEREAS, a district court has the inherent power to modify the deadlines on its docket, a

23 power “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of cases on its

24 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am.

25 Co ., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp ., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.

26 1983) (holding that every court has power to manage cases on its docket and to ensure fair and

27 efficient adjudication of the matter at hand.); and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides

28 that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent," where "good cause" standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v.

2 Mammoth Recreations , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

3 Plaintiff Mallia and Defendants agree and stipulate that good cause exists under Federal

4 Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (b) and Local Rule 144 for modifying the Court’s Scheduling Order

5 ECF No. 286 by extending the current May 17, 2024 fact discovery deadline with three months

6 from the Court’s determination of plaintiff Dr. Thomas Schmitz’s capacity to proceed pro se in this

7 ligation, as well as, extending all subsequent deadline in the Scheduling Order by for the same

8 period of time accordingly. Dated: ________, 2024 Dated: April _____, 2024 . IT IS SO STIPULATED A TTORNEY N AMARA A , MBACHER By: __________________________________ , , HEELER W . & RAY G OF EPT C LLP D ALIFORNIA IRSIG H By: _________________________________ ENERAL G FFICE OF O , USTICE J C M BRIZENDINE, BROCKENBOROGH, CEBALLOS, TOCHE and WAINE Maria Zhurnalova-Juppunov Daniel R. Mayer Attorneys for Defendants RUDAS, M. SMITH, C. SMITH, TIEBROCK, Peter J. Hirsig PONCIANO, RAMKUMAR, REKART, ROBINSON, HEATLEY, J. JOHNSON, R. JOHNSON, LEIDNER, ADAMS, ANDALUZ, ASHE, ASMAN, BRANMAN,

Jennifer Nygaard Attorneys for Defendant

ERIC BRADLEY Dated: ________, 2024 B EESON T ERHORST , LLP

24 By: ________________________________ Michael A. Terhorst, Sr. Attorneys for Defendants

KEVIN KUICH, M.D. & JOE A. LIZARRAGA 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (b) and Local Rule 144, the Stipulation

3 among Plaintiff Mallia and Defendants Bradley, Kuich, Lizarraga, Adams, Andaluz, Ashe, Asman,

4 Branman, Brizendine, Brockenborogh, Ceballos, Heatley, J. Johnson, R. Johnson, Ponciano,

5 Ramkumar, Rekart, Robinson, Rudas, M. Smith, C. Smith, Tebrock, Toche, and Waine, and good

6 cause appearing thereof,

7 It is Ordered that the Scheduling Order No. 286 shall be modified to the extent that the

8 deadline for completion of fact discovery shall be extended to expire ninety days (90 days) from Thomas Schmitz to proceed proceed pro se. Other remaining dates in the Scheduling Order shall be extended with the same stipulating parties shall submit a proposed order with new dates modifying the current Scheduling Dated: April 30, 2024 Order within 5 court days after the Court issues its Order determining the capacity of Plaintiff Dr. the date this Court issues an order determining the capacity of plaintiff Dr. Thomas Schmitz to period of time accordingly. The Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged in all other respects. The pro se . . IT IS SO ORDERED CAROLYN K. DELANEY _____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE schm20cv195.stip.mod.dso

[PROPOSED] ORDER; 2:20-CV-00195-DJC-CKD

Case Details

Case Name: (PS) Schmitz v. Asman
Court Name: District Court, E.D. California
Date Published: May 1, 2024
Docket Number: 2:20-cv-00195
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.