Sacramento City Unified School District v. Harlan et al

Filing 42

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 01/24/17 ORDERING that the deadline for the parties to submit to the Court a joint proposed judgment or a joint statement explaining their positions as to a proposed judgment, is EXTENDED to 02/15/17. (Benson, A)

Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752
1 [e-mail]
Sarah L. Garcia, State Bar No. 233814
2 [e-mail]
LOZANO SMITH
3 One Capitol Mall, Suite 640
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim
6 Defendant SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
11 DISTRICT,
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, CA 95814

LOZANO SMITH

10

12
13

Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01549-TLN-DAD
JOINT STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION
TO MEET AND CONFER AND RETURN
RESPONSE TO COURT ON PROPOSED
JUDGMENT; AND ORDER

14 K.H., J.H., and R.H.
15

Defendant.

16 R.H., by and through her Guardians ad litem, J.H
and K.H. and K.H., Individually,
17 ,
18

Counterclaimants,

19

vs.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
20 DISTRICT
Counterclaim Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

___________________________________________________________________________________________
SCUSD v. R.H. et al.
1

JOINT STIP. RE: EXTENSION TO MEET &
CONFER; & ORDER

Case No.2:14-cv-01549-TLN-DAD

1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

2

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, by and between Plaintiff

3

and Cross-Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District (“District”) and Defendants and Cross-

4

Complainants J.H. and K.H., and as guardian ad litem for R.H. (“Defendants” and collectively with the

5

District, the “parties”), through their counsel of record, through its counsel of record, as follows:

6
7

1.

summary judgment (“Opinion”);

8
9

2.

12

the Court’s Opinion;
3.

On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition and objections to the Proposed

Judgment;

13
14

On December 13, 2016, Defendants filed a Proposed Judgment pertaining to claims

arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Educations Improvement Act (“IDEA”), as adjudicated by

11
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, CA 95814

LOZANO SMITH

10

On October 7, 2016, the Court issued its Opinion regarding the parties’ cross-motions for

4.

On January 9, 2017, Defendants filed a reply to the District’s opposition and objections to

the Proposed Order;

15

5.

On January 10, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to discuss and

16

attempt to resolve their differing views on the proposed judgment, including the calculation of any

17

potential interest owed, and to file a Joint Proposed Judgment within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s

18

subject order;

19

6.

On Friday, January 20, 2017, counsel for the parties participated in a telephone

20

conversation to meet and confer about the proposed judgment, in accordance with the Court’s Order. In

21

addition to the proposed judgment, counsel discussed the possibility of settlement of this action in full,

22

and agreed that it is in the best interest of the parties’ ability to successfully meet and confer regarding

23

same, to extend the time to submit to the Court a joint proposed judgment or a joint statement explaining

24

the parties’ positions as to a proposed judgment, to February 15, 2017;

25

7.

26

///

27

///

28

This is the first request for modification to the Court’s January 10, 2017 order; and

///
JOINT STIP. RE: EXTENSION TO MEET &
CONFER; & ORDER

2

SCUSD v. R.H. et al.
Case No. 2:14-cv-01549-TLN-DAD

1

8.

Based on the foregoing, the parties request the Court’s approval to extend the time to

2

submit to the Court a joint proposed judgment or a joint statement explaining the parties’ positions as to

3

a proposed judgment, to February 15, 2017.

4
5

Dated: January 24, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

6

LOZANO SMITH

7

/s/ Sloan R. Simmons
SLOAN R. SIMMONS
SARAH L. GARCIA
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

8
9

11

Dated: January 24, 2017

Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, CA 95814

LOZANO SMITH

10
Respectfully submitted,
RUDERMAN & KNOX, LLP
/s/ Colleen A. Snyder
F. RICHARD RUDERMAN
COLLEEN A. SNYDER
Attorney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
R.H., by and through her Guardians ad litem, J.H and K.H.
and K.H.,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIP. RE: EXTENSION TO MEET &
CONFER; & ORDER

3

SCUSD v. R.H. et al.
Case No. 2:14-cv-01549-TLN-DAD

1
2

ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Stipulation between Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Sacramento City

3

Unified School District (“District”) and Defendants and Cross-Complainants J.H. and K.H., and as

4

guardian ad litem for R.H. (“Defendants”), and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, THE

5

COURT HEREBY ORDERS the deadline for the parties to submit to the Court a joint proposed

6

judgment or a joint statement explaining their positions as to a proposed judgment, is extended to

7

February 15, 2017.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

January 24, 2017

11

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, CA 95814

LOZANO SMITH

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIP. RE: EXTENSION TO MEET &
CONFER; & ORDER

4

SCUSD v. R.H. et al.
Case No. 2:14-cv-01549-TLN-DAD