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.)

Download PDF
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?