The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
THE PARTIES BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HERBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MANDATORY JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1) This matter is presently set for a Mandatory Joint Scheduling Conference on June 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.
2) The Defendants Kern County Department of Parks and Recreation were served with process on June 19, 2012. Service of process is still being effected on Defendant Deputy William Strawter.
3) Prior unsuccessful attempts to serve said Defendants had been made. 4) The Defendants Kern County Department of Parks and Recreation and Deputy William Strawter will need additional time in order to have any meaningful participation in the Mandatory Joint Scheduling Conference.
5) The Defendant United States of America does not object to a further continuance of the Mandatory Joint Scheduling Conference.
6) After conferring with all counsel and their respective calendars it is respectfully requested that the Mandatory Joint Scheduling Conference be continued for a minimum of 60 days.
Dated: June 20, 2012 /s/ Robert A. Brady Robert A. Brady, Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHAEL SHOFNER and GENEAN PARAJAS Dated: June 20, 2012 /s/ Mark L. Nations Mark L. Nations, Chief Deputy Kern County Counsel, Attorneys for Defendants KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Dated: June 20, 2012 /s/ Alyson A. Berg Alyson A. Berg Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the Court is the second request that the mandatory scheduling conference be continued. (Doc. 14) Plaintiffs report that they still have not served Defendant Deputy William Strawter (Id. at 2) although they filed a proof of service as to Deputy Strawter at the same time as the stipulation. (Doc. 12) In any event, this service and that accomplished on the County of Kern, did not occur until two days ago. Id. Plaintiffs offer no explanation for this dilatory conduct. They assert that they made prior, unsuccessful attempts at service but fail to provide any facts to support this claim.*fn1
The current situation is hardly changed from that when the Court granted the first continuance of the scheduling conference on April 18, 2012. (Doc. 11) At that time, Plaintiffs reported that there were "two known Defendants whom have not been served with the Summons and Complaint." (Doc. 9 at 2) They claimed, again without any factual support, that they had exercised diligence in attempting to serve these defendants. Even still, in its order granting the continuance, it reminded Plaintiffs of their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 but, nevertheless, timely service did not occur.
Due to Plaintiffs continued failure to effect timely service, the Court has no option but to, once again, continue the scheduling conference. However, Plaintiffs are advised that ...