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)
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?