Schmidt et al v. Shasta County Marshal's Office et al

Filing 42

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/19/2016 ORDERING that the Hearing on the Defendants' 25 Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to 12/1/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170)
[e-mail]
STEVE CIKES (SBN 235413)
[e-mail]
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 600
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SHASTA (erroneously sued herein as
SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL’S OFFICE), and JOEL DEAN

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JAIME SCHMIDT, DEBRA KNOWLES,
ELIZABETH SAMPSON, AND RYAN
HENRIOULLE,

RENNE SLOAN H OLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
Attorneys at Law

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15

Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE
HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDDGMENT

SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL’S OFFICE
AND JOEL DEAN,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(f), Defendants Superior Court of California, County

19

of Shasta1 and Joel Dean (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs Jaime Schmidt, Debra Knowles,

20

Elizabeth Sampson and Ryan Henrioulle (“Plaintiffs”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows.

21

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the

22

alternative partial summary judgment and scheduled a hearing on that motion for October 20, 2016.

23

(ECF No. 25.)

24

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application requesting an

25

extension of time to file their opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion as well as a

26

continuance of the October 20, 2016 hearing scheduled on that motion. (ECF No. 32.)

27
28

1

Erroneously sued herein as Shasta County Marshal’s Office.
-1STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDMENT; Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE

1

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ ex parte

2

application and rescheduled the hearing on Defendants’ summary judgment motion for November 17,

3

2016. (ECF No. 39.)

4

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants are not available on the newly-rescheduled November 17,

5

2016 hearing date due to prior commitments. They are, however, available on the Court’s next available

6

hearing date – i.e., December 1, 2016. Counsel for Plaintiffs are likewise available on December 1,

7

2016.

8

NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court

9

continue the November 17, 2016 hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) to

10

December 1, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

11

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

12

Dated: October 19, 2016

RENNE SLOAN H OLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
Attorneys at Law

13

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
By:

/s/
Steve Cikes
Attorneys for Defendants

14
15
16

Dated: October 19, 2016

17

CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION
By:

/s/
Joshua H. Watson
Attorney for Plaintiffs

18
19
20
21
22

I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence for the filing of this document for any signatures
indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
Dated: October 14, 2016

23
24
25

/s/
Steve Cikes
ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2016

26
27
28
-2STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDMENT; Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE