Lum v. County of San Joaquin, et al.,

Filing 112

STIPULATION and ORDER 111 to re-schedule hearing signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/30/2012. Final Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to 6/25/2012 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK). (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar #125127)
JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar # 238105)
ZOEY P. MERRILL (State Bar #268331)
THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
The Kress Building
20 North Sutter Street, Fourth Floor
Stockton, California 95202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MATTHEW P. DACEY (State Bar #196943)
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL OF SAN JOAQUIN
Deputy County Counsel
44 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 679
Stockton, California 95202
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for All Defendants

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

JERRY LUM, etc., et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.

18
19

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1

NO. 2:10-CV-01807-LKK-DAD
STIPULATION AND ORDER
RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE
[F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4)]
[No hearing required]

1
2

This stipulation and proposed order is entered into between all Plaintiffs
and all Defendants.

3

RECITALS

4
5

A.

On September 29, 2010, the Court issued its Scheduling Order.

(Doc. No. 19).

6

B.

The Scheduling Order scheduled the pretrial conference for

7

May 29, 2012, and the trial to start on August 28, 2012. Pursuant to Rule 281 of the

8

Local Rules and the Scheduling Order, the parties’ pretrial statements are due on

9

May 15 and 22, 2012.

10

C.

By order issued on March 23, 2012, the Court granted in part and

11

denied in part portions of Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 107). The

12

Court also ordered further briefing on certain issues contained in the summary judgment

13

motion, which briefing the parties filed, and the Court still has under submission those

14

portions of the summary judgment motion.

15
16

D.

On April 20, 2012, Defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal

of the portions of the Court’s order denying Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

17

E.

Defendants believe the filing of the notice of interlocutory appeal

18

stays the lawsuit and they intend to file a motion confirming the stay, which they intend

19

to calendar for hearing on June 4, 2012.

20

F.

Lead trial counsel for Defendants, Dana A. Suntag, is having

21

nonelective, required surgery at UCSF in San Francisco on May 3, 2012, for which he

22

will be hospitalized for one or two nights, and he has been told that he will not be able to

23

return to work until approximately May 15, 2012. This will limit his ability to work on

24

Defendants’ pretrial statement and the parties’ joint pretrial statement, due on May 22,

25

2012.

26
27

G.

For the above reasons, the parties respectfully request the Court to

reschedule the pretrial conference to June 25, 2012 (or such other available date to the

28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

2

1

Court around June 25, 2012). Rescheduling the pretrial conference in this manner will

2

conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, because without a rescheduling of

3

the pretrial conference the parties would have to prepare and file pretrial statements

4

and the parties and the Court would conduct the May 29, 2012, pretrial conference

5

when the Court may shortly thereafter stay the case pending the appeal. Moreover,

6

without a rescheduling of the pretrial conference, Mr. Suntag will have only a limited

7

ability to be involved in the preparation of pretrial statements. Therefore, the parties

8

believe that good cause, as required by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Local Rules, exists for the

9

rescheduling of the pretrial conference.

10

H.

Since the trial date is August 28, 2012, the parties do not believe

11

the scheduling change they request by this stipulation requires any change to the trial

12

date and the parties do not request the Court to change that date.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

3

1

STIPULATION

2

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, through their counsel

3

of record, that the pretrial conference be rescheduled to June 25, 2012, or such other

4

date around June 25, 2012, that is available to the Court.

5

Dated: April 26, 2012

THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation

6
By: __/s/ Dana A. Suntag____________
DANA A. SUNTAG
Attorneys for All Defendants

7
8
9

Dated: April 26, 2012

WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG LLP

10
By: __/s/ Peter J. Koenig____________
PETER J. KOENIG
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs
ORDER

11
12
13

It is so ordered.

14

The pretrial conference is rescheduled to June 25, 2012, at 1:30 p .m.

15
16

Dated: April 30, 2012.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

4