Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

1800 South Maple Street, LLC v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 4, 2008

1800 SOUTH MAPLE STREET, LLC, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING A STAY OF THIS MATTER [Doc. No. 20]

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter have filed an Ex Parte Application [Doc. No. 20] requesting a stay of this case pending resolution of Plaintiffs' currently pending motion to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs have sought leave from the presiding District Judge to join an additional defendant to the case; if leave is granted, Plaintiffs assert that the additional defendant's presence in the case will destroy diversity jurisdiction and necessitate remand of the case to state court. (Plaintiffs' Ex Parte, 2.) As such, Plaintiffs request that this Court place a stay on the dates set forth in its January 10, 2008 Case Management Order [Doc. No. 19] in order to avoid the "judicial inefficiency" that may result from the parties meeting pursuant to Rule 26(f) while the motion to amend is pending. (Id. at 3.)

Defendants oppose the request and argue that Plaintiffs fail to show good cause for the stay. Defendants' Opposition, Doc. No. 22, 2.) Defendants also assert that the deadlines and obligations created by the Case Management Order are not onerous, and the case should continue to progress forward pending the resolution on Plaintiffs' motion to amend. (Id.) In reply, Plaintiffs argue that although they have been attempting in good faith to comply with the deadlines set forth in the Court's order, Defendants have not been cooperative in scheduling the Rule 26(f) conference. (Plaintiffs' Reply, Doc. No. 23, 2.)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate good cause for a stay of the deadlines set by this Court's January 10, 2008 Case Management Order [Doc. No. 19]. The Court agrees with Defendants' assertion that the obligations are not onerous and will not result in judicial inefficiency given the early stage of the litigation of this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application [Doc. No. 20] is DENIED. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed on or before February 8, 2008. All other terms and conditions of the Court's Case Management Order shall remain in full force and effect. Failure of any counsel or party to comply with this order will result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080204

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.