Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports US, et al
Filing
158
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/24/2011 GRANTING plaintiff's 157 Ex Parte Application to allow this case to proceed. Plaintiff shall file his Complaint by 9:00 AM on 6/27/2011. Court advises parties to focus on efficient resolution of case. (Marciel, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BYRON CHAPMAN,
NO. CIV. S-04-1339 LKK/DAD
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
O R D E R
14
15
PIER 1 IMPORTS, INC., et al
Defendants.
/
16
17
On June 16, 2011, the court ordered plaintiff to file an
18
amended complaint by June 23, 2011.
At 8:10 p.m. on June 23,
19
instead of filing an amended complaint, plaintiff filed an
20
ex parte application to allege diversity jurisdiction in the
21
amended complaint.
22
issuing an order before plaintiff’s deadline had passed.
23
Plaintiff attached an email indicating that his counsel sought
24
the stipulation of defense to the additional allegation at
25
12:26 p.m. on June 23.
26
that they would not stipulate to allow plaintiff to allege
This late filing prevented the court from
At 3:04 p.m., defense counsel responded
1
1
diversity jurisdiction because they do not believe that this
2
court has jurisdiction over the complaint because of diversity.
3
Throughout this case, defense counsel has made what should
4
be simple matters quite complicated.
This court continues to
5
attempt to have this case proceed as efficiently as possible so
6
that the case can be resolved on the merits.
7
must again issue an order disposing of pointless arguments.
8
short, stipulating to allow plaintiff to allege diversity
9
jurisdiction is a far cry from stipulating that the court
Instead, the court
In
10
actually has diversity jurisdiction.
If defense counsel would
11
have so stipulated, this case could have proceeded without such
12
delay.
13
Nonetheless, plaintiff’s counsel is not blameless.
14
reason for filing this request is to avoid dismissal of the
15
complaint if the court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss
16
plaintiff’s ADA claims.
17
the court were to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims, plaintiff
18
could move to file an amended complaint or could otherwise argue
19
that the court retains jurisdiction over its state claims.
20
Further, plaintiff’s counsel’s late attempts to obtain defense
21
counsel’s consent and to file his ex parte request resulted in
22
plaintiff missing the deadline to file his amended complaint.
23
His
This concern is entirely premature.
If
Ultimately, the court grants plaintiff’s request (Doc.
24
No. 157) to allow this case to proceed.
25
his complaint by 9:00 a.m. on June 27, 2011.
26
the parties to focus on the efficient resolution of this case
2
Plaintiff shall file
The court advises
1
and, to the extent possible, to avoid coming to the court with
2
these pointless disputes.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
DATED:
June 24, 2011.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
