Boulaalam v. County of Mono et al

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/3/2015 ORDERING 7 that Defendants shall have an extension up to and including 3/23/2015 in which to respond to the Complaint. (Reader, L)

1

4

MARJORIE E. MANNING, SBN 118643
BOLLING & GAWTHROP
A Professional Corporation
8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 190
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

Attorneys for Defendants

2
3

6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 YOUSSEF BOULAALAM,

Case No.: 2:14-CV-02112 MCE EFB

11

STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER

12

Plaintiff,
vs.

13 COUNTY OF MONO, CALIFORNIA;
MONO COUNTY SHERIFF’S SERGEANT
14 RICHARD HAHN; MONO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPUTY ARTURO TORRES; in
15 their individual capacities, and DOES 1-100,
Inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Pursuant to Local Rule 144, the parties hereto, by and through their respective undersigned
counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to an extension of defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint, to
and including March 23, 2015.
In support of this stipulation, the undersigned counsel for defendants, Marjorie E. Manning,
declares as follows:
1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and in this Court, and

am a shareholder of Bolling & Gawthrop, counsel for defendants County of Mono, Richard Hahn and
Arturo Torres in this action.

27
28
STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER

1

2.

This action was filed on September 12, 2014. Thereafter, I agreed with plaintiff’s counsel

2

to accept service on behalf of the defendants, and the parties entered into a stipulation filed January 22,

3

2015, which provided that defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint was March 2, 2015.

4

3.

When I entered into the initial stipulation with plaintiff’s counsel, I anticipated there would

5

be adequate time to respond to the complaint on my clients’ behalf. Since then, however, a number of

6

unforeseen events have transpired. The four primary matters which have demanded my attention in the

7

interim include (1) a hotly contested legal malpractice case originally filed in bankruptcy court and now

8

on appeal to the United States District Court, in which multiple post-judgment motions have been filed

9

and the court has just ordered another round of briefing; (2) a complicated probate matter that settled

10

without litigation, but with settlement terms that have required the parties to go back to the drawing board

11

repeatedly with modifications of the agreement due to complicated tax and securities issues; (3) a

12

complicated and multi-faceted case involving complicated employment, labor law, civil rights and

13

workers compensation issues; and (4) case involving severe injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the

14

dangerous condition of property which has necessitated many hours of research and negotiations

15

concerning contested insurance coverage issues.

16

4.

The complaint in the present action is 58 pages long, alleges 9 causes of action, and

17

includes sections devoted to argument. Punitive damages are sought against the individual defendants. I

18

need additional time to analyze the pleading and confer with my clients prior to determining the

19

appropriate response to what is an unusually lengthy and complicated pleading. In addition, plaintiff’s

20

counsel has raised the issue of potential alternative dispute resolution in this matter and it is necessary that

21

I explore that possibility with my clients.

22

5.

There has been only one previous extension of time to respond to the complaint in this

23

matter, namely, that stipulated to initially in exchange for my agreement to accept service on behalf of my

24

clients. The present extension would extend the deadline to respond to the complaint by only 21

25

additional days, i.e., until March 23, 2015.

26

6.

There are no other deadlines in this case that would be affected by the proposed extension.

27
28
-2STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER
h

1
2

7.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s consent to the requested extension is reflected in the stipulation set

forth below.

3

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States and the State of

4

California that the foregoing is true and correct, that I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth

5

herein, and if called as a witness in this matter I am competent to testify thereto.

6

Executed this 25th day of February 2015 at Sacramento, California.

7

/s/ Marjorie. E. Manning
Marjorie E. Manning

8
9

STIPULATION

10

The parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

11

1.

The complaint in this matter was filed September 12, 2014.

12

2.

By stipulation filed January 22, 2015, counsel for the Defendants agreed to accept service

13
14

on her clients’ behalf and Defendants were allowed until March 2, 2015, to respond to the complaint.
3.

Due to a press of business upon Defense counsel, coupled with the parties’ consideration of

15

Voluntary Dispute Resolution under Local Rule 271, the parties agree that Defendants shall have an

16

additional 21 days, until March 23, 2015, to respond to the complaint.

17

Date: February 25, 2015

Law Office of Allen Berrey

18
By: /s/ Allen Berrey________
Allen Berrey

19
20

Date: February 25, 2015

21

By: /s/ Ben Williams________
Ben Williams
Attorneys for Plaintiff

22
23
24

Jesse Ortiz Law

Date: February 25, 2015

Bolling & Gawthrop
By: /s/Marjorie E. Manning__
Marjorie E. Manning
Attorneys for Defendants

25
26
27
28

-3STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER
h

1
2
3

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall have an extension up to and including
March 23, 2015 in which to respond to the complaint.

4
5

Dated: March 3, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (LOCAL RULE 144); ORDER
h