Walter W. Wells et al v. County of Stanislaus et al
Filing
73
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/29/2022 ORDERING the page limit for Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants' FRCP 12(b) (6) motions to dismiss is extended to 25. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490)
AGonzalez@mofo.com
JESSICA L. GRANT (CA SBN 178138)
JGrant@mofo.com
MATTHEW A. CHIVVIS (CA SBN 251325)
MChivvis@mofo.com
ROBERT S. SANDOVAL (CA SBN 311032)
RSandoval@mofo.com
MEREDITH L. ANGUEIRA (CA SBN 333222)
MAngueira@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WALTER W.WELLS, SCOTT McFARLANE, BALJIT
ATHWAL, and DALJIT ATWAL
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT
MCFARLANE
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, ET AL.
Defendants.
Case No. 1:20-cv-00770-TLN-BAM
JOINT STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT
FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
Hon. Troy L. Nunley
18
Trial: None Set
19
Related to:
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00311-TLN-BAM
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00747-TLN-BAM
CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00496-TLN-BAM
CASE NO. 1:18-cv-01403-TLN-BAM
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
1
BALJIT ATHWAL and DALJIT ATWAL,
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF STANILSAUS; CITY OF
TURLOCK; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY OF
CERES; STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; KIRK BUNCH;
JON EVERS; TIMOTHY REDD; DALE
LINGERFELT; STEVE JACOBSON; BIRGIT
FLADAGER; GALEN CARROLL;
8
9
Defendants.
FRANK CARSON,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:20-cv-00747-TLN-BAM
Plaintiffs,
10
11
Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM
v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, CITY OF
MODESTO, CITY OF CERES, BIRGIT
FLADAGER, MARLISSA FERREIRA, DAVID
HARRIS, KIRK BUNCH, STEVE JACOBSON,
JON EVERS, CORY BROWN, and DEREK
PERRY, and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
GEORGIA DEFILIPPO AND CHRISTINA
DEFILIPPO
18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, ET AL.
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
Case No. 1:18-cv-00496-TLN-BAM
EDUARDO QUINTANAR, JR.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01403-TLN-BAM
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, ET AL.
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
2
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
sf-4768609
1
Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY OF TURLOCK;
2
CITY OF CERES; STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
3
BIRGIT FLADAGER; MARLISSA FERREIRA; DAVID HARRIS; KIRK BUNCH; STEVE
4
JACOBSON; CORY BROWN; JON EVERS; TIMOTHY REDD; DALE LINGERFELT;
5
GALEN CARROL; FROLIAN MARISCAL; LLOYD MCKINNON; GREG JONES;
6
KENNETH BARRINGER; GALEN CARROLL; FRANK NAVARRO; and TIMOTHY REDD
7
(“Defendants”) and Plaintiffs ESTATE OF FRANK CARSON; GEORGIA DEFILIPPO;
8
CHRISTINA DEFILIPPO; EDUARDO QUINTANAR, JR.; BALJIT ATHWAL; DALJIT
9
ATHWAL; WALTER WELLS; and SCOTT MCFARLANE (“Plaintiffs”) through their
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
1.
WHEREAS Plaintiffs have been served with multiple separate motions to
dismiss;
2.
WHEREAS Plaintiffs have settled their claims against City of Ceres and City of
Turlock;
3.
WHEREAS additional space is needed to respond to the arguments raised by the
remaining Defendants;
4.
All parties agree to a 25-page limit for Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to Defendants’
FRCP 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
3
1
2
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 28, 2022
3
4
5
6
By: /s/ Arturo J. González
ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ
7
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BALJIT ATHWAL, DALJIT ATWAL,
WALTER WELLS, AND SCOTT
MCFARLANE
9
10
11
ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ
JESSICA L. GRANT
MATTHEW CHIVVIS
ROBERT S. SANDOVAL
MEREDITH L. ANGUEIRA
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Dated: March 28, 2022
ALLEN, GLAESSNER,HAZELWOOD &
WERTH, LLP
12
13
By: */s/ Patrick Moriarty
DALE L. ALLEN, JR.
PATRICK D. MORIARTY
JOHN B. ROBINSON
14
15
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF MODESTO, JON EVERS, and
GALLEN CARROLL
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dated: March 28, 2022
GWILLIAM, IVARY, CHIOSSO, CAVALLI
&BREWER
By: */s/ Angelina Austin
J. Gary Gwilliam
Randall E. Strauss
Jayme L. Walker
Angelina M. Austin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ESTATE OF FRANK CARSON, GEORGIA
DEFILIPPO, CHRISTINA DEFILIPPO AND
EDUARDO QUINTANAR, JR.
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
4
1
Dated: March 28, 2022
2
3
By: */s/ John Whitefleet
John R. Whitefleet
4
5
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS
COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, BIRGIT FLADAGER,
MARLISSA FERRIERA, DAVID HARRIS,
KIRK BUNCH, STEVE JACOBSON, CORY
BROWN, DALE LINGERFELT, FROLIAN
MARISCAL, LLOYD MACKINNON, GREG
JONES, KENNETH BARRINGER
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Dated: March 28, 2022
ARATA SWINGLE VAN EGMOND &
HEITLINGER
By: */s/ Bradley Swingle
Bradley J. Swingle
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF TURLOCK, CITY OF CERES,
FRANK NAVARRO, AND TIMOTHY
REDD
* Parties have consented to use of their electronic signature.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
5
1
2
3
4
ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties:
The page limit for Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to Defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) motions to
dismiss is extended to 25.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 29, 2022
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
6
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?