Gallagher v. Philipps
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Defendant David Philipps filed an ex parte motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference pending the resolution of his Anti-SLAPP motion. The Court set a briefing schedule for the motion, requiring an opposition by October 2, 2020, and a reply by October 6, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Set briefing schedule for Defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Continue ENE and CMC“Accordingly, the Court HEREBY SETS the following briefing schedule: 1. Any opposition to Defendant Philipps’s motion must be filed on or before October 2, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. 2. Any reply must be filed on or before October 6, 2020.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent case management authority to schedule briefing on a pending motion. The order does not rule on the merits of the motion to continue, but rather sets the procedural timeline for the parties to brief it. This is a standard procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order. It correctly identifies the pending motion and sets a reasonable deadline for briefing. It does not apply substantive law to resolve a dispute, but rather manages the docket. The citation to Winter is part of the defendant's argument recited in the order, not necessarily a holding by the court itself, but the court's action of setting a schedule is procedurally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD R. GALLAGHER, Case No.: 20cv993-JLS(BLM) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE v. 13 DAVID PHILIPPS and KENNETH JOHN 14 BRAITHWAITE, II, in his capacity as Secretary of the Navy, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On September 28, 2020, Defendant David Philips (“Defendant”) filed an Ex Parte Motion 19 to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference 20 (“CMC”). ECF No. 28. Defendant requests that the Court stay the ENE and CMC until District 21 Judge Janis L. Sammartino rules on Defendant’s pending motion to strike or, alternatively, 22 dismisses Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (the “Anti-SLAPP Motion”). Id. at 2. In support of 23 his motion, Defendant states “Plaintiff’s claims target Mr. Philips’s constitutionally protected 24 speech” and “[c]ourts have made clear that early dismissal at the pleading stage is especially 25 appropriate in cases . . . that invoke significant First Amendment rights.” Id. (citing Winter v. 26 DC Comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881, 892 (2003)). In further support, Defendant states that he 27 anticipates that his pending Anti-SLAPP Motion will resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims against him. Id. at 2. Defendant notes that, upon notifying the other parties in the instant action, Plaintiff’s 1 counsel informed him that he intends to file an opposition to Defendant's Motion and counsel 2 Defendant Kenneth John Braithwaite II stated that he had “no objection to postponing the 3 || ENE Conference and other discovery matters until the Anti-SLAPP Motion is decided, but opposes 4 || postponing the CMC absent a broader discovery stay.” Id. at n. 1.; ECF No. 28-1, Declaration 5 |}of Thomas R. Burke in Support of Defendant David Philips’s Ex Parte Motion to Continue Early 6 || Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference, at §] 4. Accordingly, the Court 7 || HEREBY SETS the following briefing schedule: 8 1. Any opposition to Defendant Philipps’s motion must be filed on or before October 9 || 2, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. 10 2. Any reply must be filed on or before October 6, 2020. 11 ||Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submission pursuant to 12 || Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will be required. 13 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 9/29/2020 lobe Mager 15 Hon. Barbara L. Major 16 United States Maaistrate Judae 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Winter v. DC Comics S108751 · 2003-06-02