Mendoza v. Cate

Filing 87

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/15/15. The Evidentiary Hearing is reset for 8/17/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Manzer, C)

4

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW
Attorney at Law SBN 65211
331 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
[phone]
[e-mail]

5

Attorney for Arquimedes Mendoza

1
2
3

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

The parties in the above captioned case have met and

9

ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

MATHEW CATE,

13

16
17

Defendant.

No. CIV 09-01710 MCE DAD
STIPULATION AND
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

conferred and have agreed to continue the evidentiary hearing in
the matter, presently scheduled June 8, 2015, and jointly request

18
19
20

this Court grant their request.
April 31, 2015, the reply brief in United States v Broadnax

21

was filed in the Ninth Circuit, and on April 14, 2015, undersigned

22

participated in oral in the matter of Seeboth v Mayberg in that

23

same Court. Both cases required considerable work and preparation

24

prior to those dates. Then, on April 22, 2015 the Ninth Circuit
25
26
27

Court of Appeal short set oral argument in the matter of Holmes v
Johnson, USCA 14-15530 for June 11, 2015. In fact, appellant’s

28

-1-

1

reply brief had not been filed and will not be filed until the end

2

of this week.

3

Respondent’s counsel has faced similar scheduling and work

4
5
6

conflicts. This past week the California Supreme Court scheduled
argument in Los Angeles on June 2, 2015. He will, in his words,

7

“be wrapped up in preparing for that for the remainder of the

8

month.”

9
10

In addition, the parties agree that a joint interview of the
trial judge should be accomplished, if possible. Moreover,

11
12
13

respondent has agreed to facilitate an interview with the
prosecutor in this matter. Neither interview has occurred because

14

of scheduling problems. For these reasons the parties request a

15

continuance of the evidentiary hearing.

16
17

Both counsel are available August 17, 2015 and August 23,
2015 for the evidentiary hearing. Should the Court wish another

18
19
20
21
22

23

date, the parties shall of course accommodate the Court’s
schedule.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested by both parties
that the evidentiary hearing date be moved to either August 17,
2015, August 23, 2015, or a date more convenient to the Court.

24
25

Dated: May 12, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

26

/s/ Michael Bigelow__________
MICHAEL BIGELOW
Attorney for Petitioner

27
28

-2-

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED

2

/S/Michael B. Bigelow
MICHAEL B. BIGELOW
Attorney for Petition

Dated: May 12, 2015

/s/ Kevin Quade
KEVIN QUADE
Attorney for Respondent

Dated: May 12, 2015

3
4
5
6
7

8

ORDER

9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the stipulation of the

11

parties, the evidentiary hearing in the above-captioned matter is

12

continued to

13

Dated:

August 17, 2015

May 15, 2015

14
15
16
17

DAD:8
Mendoza1710.cont

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-