Murrietta-Golding et al v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 72

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO withdraw plaintiff Lopez's Motion for Protective Order as moot and VACATE Hearing set for 7/22/2020. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/13/2020. (Kusamura, W)

Download PDF
1 Mildred K. O'Linn (State Bar No. 159055) mko@manningllp.com 2 Tony M. Sain (State Bar No. 251626) tms@manningllp.com 3 Lynn L. Carpenter (State Bar No. 310001) llc@manningllp.com 4 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 5 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 6 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 7 Attorneys for Defendants, 8 CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER AND RAY VILLALVAZO 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, Deceased, THROUGH HIS 13 SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ; and 14 CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ, Individually,, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CITY OF FRESNO, a public entity, 18 CITY OF FRESNO POLICE CHIEF JERRY DYER, SERGEANT RAY 19 VILLALVAZO, individually, and DOES 3 through 10, Jointly and 20 Severally, 21 Defendants. ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, 22 Deceased, THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST 23 ANTHONY GOLDING; and ANTHONY GOLDING, Individually, 24 Plaintiffs, 25 v. Case No. 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO [Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge; Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge] STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFF LOPEZ'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS MOOT AND VACATE HEARING DATE (Docs, 66, 71) MPO Hearing: Trial Date: 07/22/2020 10/27/2020 26 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 27 Defendants. 28 Case No. 1:18-cv-00332-AWI-SKO 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW MPO AS MOOT AND VACATE HEARING DATE 1 Plaintiff ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING through his Successor in Interest 2 CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ, and CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ individually 3 and Defendant CITY OF FRESNO ("City") hereby stipulate and respectfully request 4 that Plaintiff Lopez's Motion for Protective Order be withdrawn as moot and that the 5 Court's hearing date on plaintiff's motion be vacated based on the foregoing good 6 cause. 7 STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFF'S MPO AND 8 VACATE HEARING DATE. 9 1. On June 2, 2020, defendant-petitioner City of Fresno filed its petition 10 with the Fresno Superior Court – Juvenile Delinquency Division for the disclosure of 11 Israel Murrietta's juvenile case file records. On June 12, 2020, the City filed its 12 motion-request related to the June 2, 2020, petition. 13 2. On June 26, 2020, plaintiff Christina Lopez filed her Motion for 14 Protective Order related to defendant City's petition, requesting an order from the U.S. 15 District Court to prevent disclosure of the juvenile records [see Doc. 66.] 16 Additionally, plaintiff Lopez requested an order shortening time for defendants to file 17 their opposition to the Motion for Protective Order and for the Court to hear the 18 motion. 19 3. On June 30, 2020, the Court issued an order denying plaintiff's ex parte 20 request for an order shortening time, and setting plaintiff Lopez's Motion for 21 Protective Order for hearing on July 22, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. [Doc. 70.] The Court 22 further ordered the parties to file their Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement 23 pursuant to the Eastern District of California Local Rules by July 15, 2020. 24 4. On June 24, 2020, the Fresno Superior Court – Juvenile Delinquency 25 Court issued an order denying defendant City's petition requesting the release of Israel 26 Murrietta's juvenile records [see FSC Case no. 17CEJ600233, JV-573 Order on 27 Request for Disclosure of Juvenile Case File.] On July 7, 2020, counsel for the City 28 received mail notice from the Superior Court clerk regarding the Juvenile Court's Case No. 1:18-cv-00332-AWI-SKO 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW MPO AS MOOT AND VACATE HEARING DATE 1 order. 2 5. On July 8, 2020, the following day, counsel for the City informed 3 counsel for plaintiff Lopez of the Court's ruling. 4 6. Because the Juvenile Court's order ultimately precludes release of the 5 requested juvenile records – the subject of plaintiff Lopez's Motion for Protective 6 Order, the parties are in agreement that good cause exists for plaintiff Lopez's Motion 7 for Protective Order to be withdrawn as moot, and for the associated July 22, 2020, 8 hearing date for plaintiff's motion to be vacated. 9 STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFF LOPEZ's MOTION FOR 10 PROTECTIVE ORDER AS MOOT AND VACATE HEARING DATE 11 7. Based on the foregoing good cause, plaintiff Lopez and the City 12 respectfully request that plaintiff Lopez's Motion for Protective Order be withdrawn 13 as moot, and that the July 22, 2020, hearing date on plaintiff's motion be vacated. 14 8. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart and a facsimile or 15 electronic signature shall be as valid as an original signature. 16 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 17 18 DATED: July 10, 2020 19 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 20 21 22 23 24 25 By: /s/ Midred K. O'Linn Mildred K. O'Linn, Esq. Tony M. Sain, Esq. Lynn L. Carpenter, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER, AND RAY VILLALVAZO 26 27 28 Case No. 1:18-cv-00332-AWI-SKO 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW MPO AS MOOT AND VACATE HEARING DATE 1 DATED: July 10, 2020 HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP 2 3 By: 4 /s/ Julia Sherwin Julia Sherwin Attorney for Plaintiffs, ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, by and through his successor in interest CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ, and CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ individually 5 6 7 8 9 10 ORDER 11 Pursuant to the above-stipulation of the parties (Doc. 71) and for good cause, 12 Plaintiff Christina Lopez's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 66) is WITHDRAWN 13 as MOOT, and the hearing on the Motion, set for July 22, 2020, is hereby VACATED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: July 13, 2020 17 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 1:18-cv-00332-AWI-SKO 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW MPO AS MOOT AND VACATE HEARING DATE

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?