Smithee et al v. California Correctional Institution et al

Filing 72

STIPULATION and ORDER 71 to Continue the Hearing Date on Motions to Dismiss, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/25/2020. Motion Hearings continued to 3/31/2020 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 GREGORY J. BROD, CSB 184456 MARKUS WILLOUGHBY, CSB 197478 WILLOUGHBY BROD, LLP 96 Jessie Street San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone (415) 397-1130 Facsimile (415) 397-2121 5 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DANA SMITHEE, E.M., a minor by and through guardian ad litem JENNIFER MONTES 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DANA SMITHEE, “E.M.”, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, JENNIFER MONTES, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL ) INSTITUTION, PRATAP NARAYAN, ) KARIN CELOSSE, JENNIFER SEYMOUR, ) RHONDA LITT-STONER, and DOES 1 ) through 200, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:19-cv-0004 LJO JLT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING DATE OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS 26 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS: Case No. 1:19-cv-0004 LJO JLT -1 1 On or about January 30, 2020, Defendant PRATAP NARAYAN filed a Motion to 2 Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint (Document 66) (hereinafter referred to as the 3 “NARAYAN Motion”). On or about January 30, 2020, Defendants KARIN CELOSSE, 4 5 JENNIFER SEYMOUR, RHONDA LITT-STONER filed a Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint (Document 67) (hereinafter referred to as the “C.C.I. Defendants’ 6 7 8 Motion”). The hearing date for both motions is currently set for March 9, 2020. The parties have agreed to continue the hearing date to March 31, 2020, or to a date 9 convenient to this Court. In addition, plaintiffs’ oppositions to the NARAYAN Motion and the 10 C.C.I. Defendants’ Motion would be due on or by March 10, 2020, with reply briefs due on or 11 by March 24, 2020. 12 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 14 Dated: February 20, 2020 WILLOUGHBY BROD, LLP 15 16 By: 17 /S/ Gregory J. Brod GREGORY J. BROD 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DANA SMITHEE, E.M., a minor by and through guardian ad litem JENNIFER MONTES 19 20 21 22 Dated: February 20, 2020 BEESON TERHORST, LLP 23 24 By: 25 26 S/ Jeffrey E. Beeson ________ JEFFREY E. BEESON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant PRATAP NARAYAN, M.D. 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS: Case No. 1:19-cv-0004 LJO JLT -2 1 Dated: February 20, 2020 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California JON S. ALLIN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 2 3 4 By:____ S/ Jeremey Duggan___________ JEREMY DUGGAN Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Celosse, Litt-Stoner, Seymour 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS: Case No. 1:19-cv-0004 LJO JLT -3 [Proposed] ORDER 1 2 3 Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulation to allow the continuance of the hearing 4 date for the motions to dismiss is GRANTED. The hearing for the two motions to dismiss, 5 currently set for March 9, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., is continued to March 31, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. 6 Plaintiffs are to file any opposition to the motions to dismiss by March 10, 2020, and any reply 7 briefs due on or by March 24, 2020. 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS: Case No. 1:19-cv-0004 LJO JLT -4

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?