Letona v. City of Modesto et al

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING the parties' request that defendants be granted an extension of time, up and to, 12/14/2012, to file an answer to the complaint. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/4/2012. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

SANJAY SCHMIDT, ESQ. SB#247475
Law Offices of Sanjay S. Schmidt
1686 Second Street, Suite 219
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney, SB#156366
JAMES F. WILSON, Senior Deputy City Attorney, SB #107289
City of Modesto
1010 10th Street, Suite 6300
P.O. Box 642
Modesto, California 95353
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF MODESTO,
Officer BRIAN FERGUSON, Officer BENJAMIN KROUTIL,
Officer JONATHAN GRIFFITH, Officer BEN BRANDVOLD and
Sergeant DANIEL KEY

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO
ROSA LETONA, NATALIE LETONA, and )
ROSEMARY BANUELOS,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CITY OF MODESTO, A Municipal
)
Corporation, Modesto Police Officers
)
BRIAN FERGUSON, Individually,
)
BENJAMIN KROUTIL, Individually,
)
JONATHAN GRIFFITH, Individually,
)
Modesto Police Sgt. DANIEL KEY, in his )
individual and official capacities, and DOES )
1-30, Jointly and Severally
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 1:12-CV-00782-AWI-DLB

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THE
COMPLAINT

STIPULATION

27

The parties to the above-entitled action, by and through their respective counsel of record,

28

hereby stipulate that, subject to the approval of the court, the time within which the defendants must file
-1-

1

an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, now set for December 4, 2012, may be extended to December 14,

2

2012.

3

The parties seek this extension of time in order to avoid potentially unnecessary filings with

4

the court, in light of the advanced stage of ongoing settlement discussions between the parties and the

5

fact that the parties believe that the settlement of the action is imminent.

6

An extension of time to answer until December 14, 2012 would not disturb the currently set

7

date for the scheduling conference in the action, which is now set for January 29, 2012. There are

8

currently no other dates pending in the action.

9
10

Should the case settle as anticipated, the parties will promptly notify the court of that fact and
seek an order removing the scheduling conference from the court’s calendar.

11
12

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 30, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

13

LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

14
15

By: _________________________________
SANJAY S. SCHMIDT, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff

16
17

Date: November 30, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

18

SUSANA ALCALA WOOD
City Attorney

19
20

By: ___________________________________
JAMES F. WILSON
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
3b142a

December 4,
Dated: 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
-2-