Kaur et al v. City of Lodi et al

Filing 118

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/12/15: 104 Clerk's Entry of Default is set aside and defendant Miles Scott Bratton shall file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or before November 23, 2015. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUKHWINDER KAUR, KULBINDER KAUR
SOHOTA, and SARABJIT SINGH SHERGILL

8
9
10
11
12

MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Second Floor
Stockton, California 95207-8253
Telephone [phone]
MARK E. BERRY, ESQ.
CA State Bar No. 155091
DERICK KONZ, ESQ
CA State Bar No. 286902

13
14

Attorneys for Defendants
MILES SCOTT BRATTON and ADAM LOCKIE

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

18

Case No. 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC

SUKHWINDER KAUR, et al.

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF
DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT MILES
SCOTT BRATTON AND ADAM LOCKIE &
FOR FILING OF AN ANSWER BY
DEFENDANT MILES SCOTT BRATTON AND
ADAM LOCKIE TO THE THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CITY OF LODI, et al.

22

Defendants.

23
24
25

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Sukhwinder Kaur, Kulbinder Kaur Sohota, and Sarabjit Singh Shergill (collectively,

26

“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Miles Scott Bratton and Adam Lockie (collectively, “Officer Defendants”)

27

request that the Court set aside the entry of default against Officer Defendants, and permit Officer

28

Defendants to file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

30

1

31

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST OFFICER DEFENDANTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Kaur v. City of Lodi; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC

1
2
3
4
5

RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On July 1, 2015, the currently-operable complaint, the Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 88,
was filed.
On July 15, 2015, Officer Defendants filed a motion to dismiss a single claim from the Third
Amended Complaint. ECF No. 89. That motion was opposed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 95.

6

On September 16, 2015, the Court denied Officer Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 100.

7

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs sought entry of default against Officer Defendants for their non-

8
9

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A). ECF No. 103.
On October 1, 2015, the Clerk of the Court entered Plaintiffs’ requested default against Officer

10

Defendants for their “fail[ure] to appear, plead or answer [Plaintiffs’] complaint within the time allowed

11

by law…” ECF No. 104.

12

On October 6, 2015, Officer Defendants filed a motion to set aside the Clerk of the Court’s entry

13

of default. ECF No. 106. That motion was opposed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 109. Officer Defendants filed

14

a reply brief on November 9, 2015. ECF No. 115.

15

STIPULATION

16

Plaintiffs and Officer Defendants hereby request and stipulate that:

17

1.

18

Defendants; and

19

2.

the Court set aside the entry of default, ECF No. 104, currently entered against Officer

Officer Defendants file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or before

20

November 23, 2015.

21

Dated: November 12, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

22

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

23

/s/ Mark E. Merin

24
25

By: __________________________________
Mark E. Merin
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SUKHWINDER KAUR, KULBINDER KAUR
SOHOTA, and SARABJIT SINGH SHERGILL

26
27
28
30

2

31

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST OFFICER DEFENDANTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Kaur v. City of Lodi; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC

1

Dated: November 12, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

2

MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.

3

/s/ Mark E. Berry
(as authorized on November 12, 2015)
By: __________________________________
Mark E. Berry

4
5

Attorney for Defendants
MILES SCOTT BRATTON and
ADAM LOCKIE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30

3

31

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST OFFICER DEFENDANTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Kaur v. City of Lodi; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, it is hereby ordered that:

3

1.

the current entry of default against Officer Defendants, ECF No. 104, be set aside; and

4

2.

Officer Defendants file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or before

5
6
7

November 23, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2015

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30

4

31

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST OFFICER DEFENDANTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Kaur v. City of Lodi; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC