Altamirano et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 13

Stipulation for Order and extending time by which Defendant J. Clark Kelso must respond to complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/17/2015. (Rosales, O)

1
2

PAVONE & FONNER, LLP | AFFELD GRIVAKES ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & SCHALENDEBRAND

3

OFFICES OF

═════════

PAVONE & FONNER
═════════
A LAW PARTNERSHIP

4

7

BENJAMIN PAVONE, ESQ., SBN 181826
7676 HAZARD CENTER DRIVE, 5TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 619 224 8886
PAVONE EMAIL: [e-mail]

8

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

5
6

9

FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD
CROLEY MAIER LLP
MARTIN H. DODD (104363)
JAMIE L. DUPREE (158105)
JAIME G. TOUCHSTONE (233187)
180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant J. Clark Kelso

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15

ALTAMIRANO, MARLON, et al.,
PLAINTIFFS,

16
17
18
19

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
FORMER GOVERNER OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

DEFENDANTS.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB
Related Cases: 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

STIPULATION FOR ORDER AND
EXTENDING TIME BY WHICH
DEFENDANT J. CLARK KELSO
MUST RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1
2

PAVONE & FONNER, LLP | AFFELD GRIVAKES ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & SCHALENDEBRAND

3
4
5

Plaintiffs Marlon Altamirano, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant J. Clark Kelso
(“Defendant Kelso”), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:
1.

Pursuant to a previous stipulation of the parties, Defendant Kelso must

respond to the complaint on file herein by no later than July 13, 2015.
2.

Defendant Kelso anticipates bringing a motion or motions to dismiss the

6

complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if this action proceeds.

7

As a result, on June 9, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation for an order establishing a

8

briefing schedule for the anticipated motion to dismiss to be filed by Defendant Kelso and

9

which is on file herein as Dkt. No. 11.

10

3.

On May 20, 2015, in Smith et al. v. Schwarzenegger et al., 1:14-cv-00060-

11

LJO-SAB (“Smith”), the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”)

12

granting the motion to dismiss on the basis of Qualified Immunity brought by the

13

defendants who had appeared in that action (Dkt. No. 164 in Smith). If the accuracy of the

14

F&R’s application of the Qualified Immunity analysis is upheld by the District Judge, the

15

Smith action might be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ objections to the F&R in Smith are currently

16

due to be filed on June 24, 2015.

17

4.

The operative facts and many of the legal issues in Smith are substantially the

18

same as the facts and legal issues in this case. Plaintiffs and Defendant Kelso agree,

19

therefore, that, without waiving any claims or defenses they may assert, the outcome in

20

Smith is likely to have a significant effect at the trial level in connection with the claims

21

against Kelso in this action, at this level.

22

5.

Accordingly, to conserve party and judicial resources, Plaintiffs and

23

Defendant Kelso hereby stipulate to an order vacating the May 27, 2015 stipulation with

24

respect to the briefing schedule filed as Dkt. No. 11. Instead, Plaintiffs and Defendant

25

Kelso stipulate to an order permitting Kelso an extension of time to appear in this action

26

pending the outcome of a ruling on the objections to the F&R by the District Judge in

27

Smith. Following the district judge’s ruling, the parties anticipate proceeding, as follows:

28
29
30
31

(a)

if the district judge sustains the objections to the F&R, the parties will
submit a further stipulation for an order re-establishing a schedule for

Defendant Kelso’s appearance in this action, including a briefing

2

schedule for any motion to dismiss that Defendant Kelso may wish to

3
PAVONE & FONNER, LLP | AFFELD GRIVAKES ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & SCHALENDEBRAND

1

bring, no later than 30 days after the ruling;

4

(b)

If the district judge overrules the objections, Plaintiffs will present a

5

stipulation for the case against Kelso to be folded into a larger appeal

6

of the Qualified Immunity ruling.

7
8

So stipulated.

9
10

Dated: June 17, 2015

FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD
CROLEY MAIER LLP

11

By: /s/Martin H. Dodd

12

Martin H. Dodd

13

Attorneys for Defendant J. Clark Kelso

14
15
16

Dated: June 17, 2015

PAVONE & FONNER, LLP

17
18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 17, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2

ORDER
Based on the Stipulation of the parties as set forth above, and good cause having

PAVONE & FONNER, LLP | AFFELD GRIVAKES ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & SCHALENDEBRAND

3

been shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the May 27, 2015 stipulation for Defendant

4

Kelso’s briefing schedule on his motion(s) to dismiss filed herein as Dkt. No. 11 shall be

5

vacated. Defendant Kelso shall have an extension of time to file a responsive pleading in

6

this action at this time pending the determination by this Court in Smith, et al. v.

7

Schwarzenegger, et al., 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB (“Smith”) with respect to the ruling on

8

Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations of May 20, 2015,

9

Dkt. No. 164, not later than 30 days after the ruling.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31