Buy This Entire Record For
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prestige Care, Inc.
United States District Court, E.D. California
November 22, 2017
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
PRESTIGE CARE, INC., PRESTIGE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, CYPRESS POINT VENTURES, LLC, PRESTIGE SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LLC, CARE CENTER ANCHORAGE, INC., GREEN VALLEY VENTURES, LLC, LAKE HAVASU TOO, LLC, SIERRA VISTA VENTURES, LLC, CHICO VENTURES, LLC, MANTECA VENTURES, LLC, MARYSVILLE VENTURES, LLC, OROVILLE ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, VISALIA VENTURES, LLC, CARE CENTER LEWISTON, INC., CALDWELL VENTURES, LLC, PARKWOOD MEADOWS, LLC, KALISPELL VENTURES, LLC, HENDERSON VENTURES II, LLC, CARE CENTER GLISAN, INC., CARE CENTER HOOD RIVER, INC., CARE CENTER (LANECO), INC., CARE CENTER (LINDA VISTA), INC., CARE CENTER (MENLO PARK), INC., CARE CENTER (PORTHAVEN), INC., CARE CENTER (WILLOWBROOK), INC., PCI CARE VENTURE I, INC., SUMMERPLACE ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, CARE CENTER (CAMAS), INC., CARE CENTER (CENTRALIA), INC., CARE CENTER (COLVILLE), INC., CARE CENTER (EDMONDS), INC., CARE CENTER (HAZEL DELL), INC., CARE CENTER (SULLIVAN PARK), INC., CARE CENTER (SUNNYSIDE), INC., CARE CENTER (TOPPENISH), INC., GIG HARBOR VENTURES, LLC, LIVING COURT VENTURES, LLC, ENUMCLAW VENTURES II, LLC, AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
Y. Park, Rumduol Vuong, Nakkisa Akhavan, U.S. EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Attorneys for Plaintiff
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) submits the following ex parte
motion to continue the mandatory scheduling conference, which
is currently set for December 19, 2017.
September 28, 2017, the EEOC filed the instant action against
Defendants. (ECF No. 1). Thereafter, the Court issued an
order setting the mandatory scheduling conference for
December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 12). Pursuant to that Order, the
joint scheduling report is due on December 12, 2017, and the
parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)
by November 28, 2017. Id.
cause exists to continue the mandatory scheduling conference
to a date on or after January 29, 2017. Pursuant to Local
Rule 144(c), a stipulation extending time cannot reasonably
be obtained and an extension is necessary for the reasons
detailed below. EEOC has named thirty-eight (38) defendants,
who have different registered Agents for Service. EEOC has
attempted to contact Defendants' corporate counsel as
well as the counsel who represented Defendants during the
investigation to request a waiver of service and/or inquire
as to whether counsel is authorized to accept service on
behalf of all Defendants. EEOC first contacted
Defendants' outside counsel who represented Defendants
during the EEOC's investigation, Kimberlee Morrow, on
October 10, 2017 and provided her with the Complaint (ECF No.
1) and Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference (ECF No.
12) so Defendants would be aware of the dates set by the
Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference. Ms. Morrow
informed EEOC that she is not representing Defendants in the
litigation but that she would held EEOC find out who would
represent Defendants. On October 18, 2017, EEOC again
contacted Ms. Morrow to follow-up via voicemail and e-mail.
Ms. Morrow informed EEOC that she would get back to EEOC
shortly. EEOC spoke with Ms. Morrow telephonically on October
26, 2017. On October 31, 2017, Ms. Morrow provided EEOC with
contact information for Defendants' corporate counsel,
Ryan Delamarter. EEOC first reached out to Mr. Delamarter on
October 31, 2017. On November 7, 2017, Mr. Delamarter
promised to provide EEOC's contact information for
Defendants' retained counsel so Defendants' counsel
could reach out to the EEOC. EEOC followed up with an email
to Mr. Delamarter on the same day, November 7, 2017, and
asked to be provided with Defendants' counsel's
contact information but never heard back from Mr. Delamarter.
EEOC also has not heard from Defendants' retained
such, despite its best efforts, EEOC has not spoken to
Defendants' counsel of record and had no choice but to
serve each Defendant's registered Agent for Service
individually. On November 14, 2017, EEOC commenced service on
Defendants. Thus, each Defendant has twenty-one (21) days
from the date of service to file a responsive pleading. Based
on the dates of service, the earliest deadline for Defendants
to file such responsive pleading will be December 5, 2017,
which falls after the last possible date to conduct the
conference of counsel pursuant to Rule 26(f) and just four
calendar days before the joint scheduling report is due to
the Court. EEOC also asks that the Court take into
consideration the upcoming holidays, during which the
conference of counsel may be challenging to coordinate due to
the parties' holiday schedules. Because Defendants have
not yet appeared and EEOC has had difficulty maintaining
contact with Defendants' counsel, the only attorney whose
involvement EEOC is currently aware of, EEOC brings this
motion ex parte.
EEOC respectfully requests an ex parte motion to
continue the mandatory scheduling conference, the deadline
for the Rule 26(f) conference of counsel, and the deadline
for the joint scheduling report to filed until at least
January 29, 2018 to allow Defendants to file their responsive
pleadings before the parties are required to conduct the Rule
26(f) conference of counsel. This will allow for the
parties' Rule 26(f) conference of counsel and submission
of the joint scheduling report to occur after the responsive
pleadings are due and after the holidays. The requested
continuance will not result in any undue delay or prejudice
to any of the parties, as the request is only to continue the
deadlines six weeks and litigation has not yet commenced.
the EEOC requests that this Court continue the mandatory
scheduling conference, which is currently set for December
19, 2017 until at least January 29, 2018.
GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Scheduling Conference shall be continued to February 6, 2018
at 3:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. A
Joint Scheduling Conference report is due one week before the
new conference date. All deadlines set forth in the Order
Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference ...