Ludavico v. Sacramento County et al

Filing 35

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 7/21/09 ORDERING dfts County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept, John McGuinnes, Daniel Zuniga, Adrian Zuniga, Dexter Powe, Michael Heller (erroneously sued as "Muel ler", Brett Schannep (erroneously sued as "Schanap" due date to file an initial pleading is EXTENDED as follows: In the event the Court grants Pltfs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, or deems the Second Amended Complaint filed, Stipulating Dfts initial responsive pleading in this matter shall be a response to the Second Amended Complaint, which response shall be due not later than twenty (20) days after either the date the Second Amended Complaint is filed electronically or the date the Courts order deeming the Second Amended Complaint filed is filed electronically; or in the event the Court denies Pltfs motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, Stipulating Dfts' responsive pleading in this matter shall be a response to the First Amended Complaint, which shall be due no later than twenty (20) days after the date the Courts order denying Pltfs motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Carlos, K)

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Michael W. Pott, SBN 186156 Ayse Kuzucuoglu, SBN 251114 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants SACRAMENTO COUNTY, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, JOHN MCGINNESS, DANIEL ZUNIGA, ADRIAN ZUNIGA, DEPUTE POWE, DEPUTY HELLER (erroneously sued as "MUELLER" and DEPUTY SCHANNEP (erroneously sued as "SCHANAP")

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS LUDAVICO, Sr., THOMAS LUDAVICO, Jr.; ASHLEY LUDAVICO, Plaintiffs, vs. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, a Government Entity; SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a Public Entity; JOHN MCGINNESS, an individual; ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Public Entity; DANIEL ZUNIGA, an individual; ADRIAN ZUNIGA, an individual; JIM ROSE, an individual; DEPUTY POWE, an individual; DEPUTY MUELLER, an individual; DEPUTY SCHANAP, an individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. /

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-01473-FCD-JFM ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' FILING OF A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the stipulation signed by Plaintiffs THOMAS LUDAVICO, Sr.; THOMAS LUDAVICO, Jr.; ASHLEY LUDAVICO and the following Stipulating Defendants:
1
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' FILING OF A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

· · · · · · ·

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as SACRAMENTO COUNTY and SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT); JOHN MCGINNESS; DANIEL ZUNIGA; ADRIAN ZUNIGA; DEPUTY DEXTER POWE; DEPUTY MICHAEL HELLER (erroneously sued as "MUELLER"); DEPUTY BRETT SCHANNEP (erroneously sued as "SCHANAP");

IT IS ORDERED that the due date for the initial responsive pleading of the Stipulating Defendants shall be extended as follows: (1) In the event the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, or deems the Second Amended Complaint filed, Stipulating Defendants' initial responsive pleading in this matter shall be a response to the Second Amended Complaint, which response shall be due not later than twenty (20) days after either the date the Second Amended Complaint is filed electronically or the date the Court's order deeming the Second Amended Complaint filed is filed electronically; or (2) In the event the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint, Stipulating Defendants' responsive pleading in this matter shall be a response to the First Amended Complaint, which shall be due no later than twenty (20) days after the date the Court's order denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Dated: July 21, 2009

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' FILING OF A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT