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)

Download PDF
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: 619 224 8885 FACSIMILE: 619 224 8886 PAVONE EMAIL: bpavone@cox.net 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: (415) 399-3840 Facsimile: (415) 399-3838 mdodd@fddcm.com jdupree@fddcm.com jtouchstone@fddcm.com 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

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?