Smith v. City of Stockton, et al

Filing 119

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 6/28/2018 DENYING without prejudice to refiling pursuant to the foregoing the parties' 118 stipulated request to continue trial date. (York, M)

5

BRUCE A. KILDAY, ESQ., SB No. 066415
Email: [e-mail]
KEVIN J. DEHOFF, ESQ., SB No. 252106
Email: [e-mail]
ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP
Attorneys at Law
601 University Avenue, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95825

6

Telecopier: [phone]

1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Telephone: [phone]

JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, ESQ., SBN 164893
Email: [e-mail]
425 N. El Dorado Street, 2nd Floor
Stockton, CA 95202
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants OFFICER ERIC AZARVAND and OFFICER GREGORY DUNN
JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ., SB No. 69888
Email: [e-mail]
BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, SB No. 222173
Email: [e-mail]
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURRIS
7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120
Oakland, CA 94621
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS and JAMES RIVERA, SR.

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
23

DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS, et al.,

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No.: 2:10-cv-02495 MCE-CKD
)
) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
) DATE
)
)
)
)
)

-1STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

1

WHEREAS this case is scheduled for trial on September 10, 2018,

2

WHEREAS counsel for Plaintiffs advised he has a conflict with a trial in the Northern

3

District that prevents him from going forward on September 10, 2018 in this matter,

4

WHEREAS counsel for Defendants do not have any objection to selecting a new trial date,

5

The parties, and each of them, hereby request that the trial date in this matter be vacated

6

and the Court schedule a Status Re: Trial Setting hearing to select a new date that is convenient

7

for the Court and all parties.

8
9

Dated: June 22, 2018

ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP
/s/ Bruce A. Kilday
By:_________________________________
BRUCE A. KILDAY
Attorneys for Defendants
OFFICER ERIC AZARVAND and
OFFICER GREGORY DUNN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Dated: June 28, 2018

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURRIS
/s/ Ben Nisenbaum
(as authorized on 6.22.18)
By:_________________________________
BEN NISENBAUM
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

1

ORDER

2

The Court has reviewed the parties’ request, which is lacking any detail as to why the

3

trial in the Northern District of California should take precedence over the trial of this action.

4

This case will be eight years old when trial commences, and the Court has already blocked off

5

fourteen (14) days of its highly impacted trial schedule to adjudicate this matter. Finding another

6

14-day period in which this Court is available, as the parties have been advised, will take this

7

case well into 2019, if not beyond. Stated another way, if this trial does not go now, there is no

8

telling when the Court will be able to confirm another date. Given that unfortunate reality, only

9

on the most compelling showing of good cause will this Court be willing to vacate the current

10

trial date. The parties are of course reminded that they are free to consent to try this case before

11

the magistrate judge on an alternative date or to participate in either a settlement conference or

12

the Court’s VDRP program.1 In the meantime, the parties’ stipulated request to continue is

13

hereby DENIED without prejudice to refiling pursuant to the foregoing.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties are also, of course, invited to contact their congressional representatives
regarding the dearth of judgeships in this district. Absent the creation of new judgeships, the
Court’s ability to be flexible with its trial calendar is negligible.
-2STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE