DeFilippo v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 10 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/1/2018. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (ECF No. 10), and good cause shown, the stipulation is granted. The time for the Stanislaus Defendants to respond to the complaint is extended to August 31, 2018. (Thorp, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 FAX: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, BIRGIT FLADAGER, MARLISSA FERREIRA, KIRK BUNCH, STEVE JACOBSON, DALE LINGERFELT, FROILAN MARISCAL, LLYOD MACKINNON, CORY BROWN, GREG JONES and KENNETH BARRINGER 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 GEORGIA DEFILIPPO AND CHRISTINA DEFILIPPO, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 13 14 CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00496-AWI-EPG v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, CITY OF MODESTO, CITY OF TURLOCK, CITY OF CERES, BIRGIT FLADAGER, MARLISSA FERREIRA, KIRK BUNCH, STEVE JACOBSON, DALE LINGERFELT, FROILAN MARISCAL, LLOYD MACKINNON, JON EVERS, DEREK PERRY, CORY BROWN, GREG JONES, TIMOTHY REDD, KENNETH BARRINGER, FRANK NAVARRO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Complaint Filed: 04/10/2018 (ECF No. 10) 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 Plaintiffs GEORGIA DEFILIPPO and CHRISTINA DEFILIPPO (“Plaintiffs”), and 26 Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, BIRGIT FLADAGER, MARLISSA FERREIRA, 27 KIRK BUNCH, STEVE JACOBSON, DALE LINGERFELT, FROILAN MARISCAL, LLYOD 28 MACKINNON, CORY BROWN, GREG 1 JONES and KENNETH BARRINGER 1 (“Stanislaus Defendants”) hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 2 1. This action was filed on April 10, 2018. 3 2. Plaintiffs filed a proof of service (ECF No. 9), which states the Stanislaus 4 5 Defendants were served on various dates. 3. The Stanislaus Defendants desire to avoid duplicate filings as a result of having a 6 response to the complaint due on various dates, and consolidate the response for all Stanislaus 7 Defendants to a single date. 8 4. In addition, this matter may be stayed due to a related criminal case involving some 9 of the same facts and witnesses as the present action is pending, which case will implicate and 10 hinder discovery in the present action. However, since not all parties have appeared, additional 11 time is necessary. 12 5. 13 14 Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Stanislaus Defendants agree that the Stanislaus Defendants shall have until August 31, 2018 to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ complaint. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 15 16 Dated: June 1, 2018 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 17 18 By /s/ John R. Whitefleet John R. Whitefleet Attorney for Stanislaus Defendants 19 20 21 22 Dated: June 1, 2018 GWILLIAM, IVARY, CHIOSSO, CAVALLI & BREWER 23 24 25 By /s/ Robert J. Schwartz (authorized on 6/1/18) Robert J. Schwartz J. Gary Gwilliam Attorney for Plaintiffs 26 27 28 2 1 2 ORDER 3 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 10), and good cause shown, the stipulation is 4 granted. The time for the Stanislaus Defendants to respond to the complaint is extended to August 5 31, 2018. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?