Niesen v. Garcia et al

Filing 13

STIPULATION and ORDER 12 signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/15/2015 re 4 DEFENDANTS' MOTION to DISMISS : No oral argument will be necessary. The court will take the motion under submission without oral argument. The 4/20/2015 hearing is vacated, and no appearance is necessary. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5

KEVIN J. DEHOFF, ESQ., SB No. 252106
Email: [e-mail]
AMIE MCTAVISH, ESQ., SB No. 242372
Email: [e-mail]
ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP
Attorneys at Law
601 University Avenue, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: [phone]

6

Telecopier: [phone]

7

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF YOLO (also sued erroneously herein as YOLO
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and YOLO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT),
L. GARCIA, J. CEJA, J. LAZARO, M. NEVIS, and V. BIGELOW

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THERESA MARIE NIESEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
L. GARCIA, YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPUTY; J. CEJA, YOLO COUNTY
)
SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; J. LAZARO, YOLO )
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY; M. NEVIS, )
YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY;
)
OFFICER BIGELOW, ANIMAL CONTROL )
OFFICER FOR YOLO COUNTY; YOLO
)
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
)
YOLO COUNTY PROBATION
)
DEPARTMENT, and Does 1 through 50, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

Case No.: 2:14-cv-02921-WBS-DAD

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR
HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
THEREON

24

WHEREAS Defendants COUNTY OF YOLO (also sued erroneously herein as YOLO

25

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and YOLO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT),

26

L. GARCIA, J. CEJA, J. LAZARO, and M. NEVIS responded to the complaint by filing a

27

motion to dismiss, which is set to be heard on April 20, 2015.

28

WHEREAS the motion has been fully briefed by the parties.
-1STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

1
2

WHEREAS Plaintiff Niesen’s counsel is scheduled to begin a jury trial beginning on
April 20, 2015, which is estimated to last four weeks.

3

WHEREAS Defendants have agreed to move the scheduled hearing for the motion to

4

dismiss until the first available court date May 18, 2015 onward in light of Plaintiff’s counsel’s

5

unavailability.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

WHEREAS the parties had previously agreed to serve initial disclosures in this matter on
or before April 8, 2015.
WHEREAS Plaintiff was unable to serve initial disclosures by the previously agreed
upon deadline.
WHEREAS Plaintiff has agreed to provide initial disclosures on or before April 24, 2015
negating the need for Defendants to file a motion to compel pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(1).
THE PARTIES THEREFORE, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD MAKE THE FOLLOWING STIPULATED REQUEST:
1.

The hearing for the motion to dismiss currently scheduled for April 20, 2015 is

hereby moved until the first available court day May 18, 2015 at 2:30 p.m..
2.

Plaintiff agrees to provide her FRCP 26(a)(1)(A) initial disclosures on or before

April 24, 2015.

18
19
20
Dated: April 15, 2015
21
LAW OFFICES OF JULIA M. YOUNG

22

/s/ Julia M. Young
[as authorized on 4/15/15]
By:_________________________________
JULIA M. YOUNG
Attorney for Plaintiff THERESA MARIE
NIESEN

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: April 15, 2015

ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP

-2STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

/s/ Kevin J. Dehoff
By:_________________________________
KEVIN J. DEHOFF
AMIE McTAVISH
Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF
YOLO, L. GARCIA, J. CEJA, J.
LAZARO, M. NEVIS, and V.
BIGELOW

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ORDER OF THE COURT
No oral argument will be necessary. The court will take the motion

8
9

under submission without oral argument. The 4/20/2015 hearing is vacated, and no appearance
is necessary.

10
11

Dated: April 15, 2015

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON