Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

McCoy v. Dep't of the Army Corps-Army Corps of Engineers

June 7, 2010

ROSLYN G. MCCOY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS-ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE HONORABLE JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, COLLECTIVELY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION TO PERMIT PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE; ORDER THERETO [Fed.R.Civ.P.16]

Plaintiff Roslyn McCoy, and Defendant John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army ("Secretary"), through their respective counsel, hereby respectfully submit the following stipulation to permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and request to modify the pretrial schedule.

I. RECITALS

1. On July 17, 2009, Roslyn McCoy, proceeding in propria persona, filed this action asserting claims against the Secretary and the Army Corps of Engineers under "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to implement the equal employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Employment Act ("ADEA") and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973." The Secretary answered on November 10, 2009 and the Corps moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

2. On December 17, 2009, the parties appeared before this Court for a Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Conference. On January 28, 2010, the Court issues its pretrial scheduling order that dismissed the Corps as a party and set following schedule:

Deadline for initial disclosure of experts: June 7, 2010 Close of discovery: August 9, 2010 Deadline for pretrial motions to be heard: October 11, 2010 Pretrial conference: February 7, 2011 Trial: April 5, 2011

3. Thereafter, on February 3, 2010, the Secretary served written discovery on Plaintiff, who was still proceeding pro per. The Secretary granted Plaintiff an extension to respond to this discovery.

4. On March 17, 2010, John Ota, substituted as counsel for Plaintiff. The Secretary granted Plaintiff another extension to respond to discovery based on Mr. Ota's substitution as counsel.

5. In April 2010, Plaintiff, through counsel, served responses to the Secretary's written discovery. Thereafter, in April and May 2010, the parties met and conferred with respect to Plaintiff's responses, including on the issue of the scope of Plaintiff's claims against Secretary. During the course of the meet and confer process, Plaintiff raised the issue of amending her complaint in light of the fact that she was proceeding pro per when she filed the original complaint and now has retained counsel.

6. Given that Plaintiff was proceeding pro per when she filed her initial complaint, and given her intervening retention of counsel, the parties agree that it is interest of judicial economy to permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint at this stage of the litigation to assert claims under the Rehabilitation Act as opposed to Title VII.

7. The parties further agree that any amendment is with the express understanding that the Secretary retains the right to file any appropriate responsive pleading to the amended complaint, including moving to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction any claims that are based on conduct that is beyond the scope of Plaintiff's administrative complaint.

8. Permitting Plaintiff to amend her complaint may alter the scope of discovery. Accordingly, the parties agree that it is in the interest of judicial economy to extend the deadlines for expert discovery, the close of discovery, and the deadline for pretrial motions.

9. The parties do not wish to change the pretrial conference date ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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