Mann et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 42

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/29/17 ORDERING that the hearing set for City Defendants' Motion to Stay 34 shall be CONTINUED to 1/22/2018 at 01:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Plaintiffs' shall file their opposition by 12/4/17, and City Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by 12/11/17. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

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]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROBERT MANN SR., VERN MURPHY-MANN,
DEBORAH MANN, ZACHARY MANN, and
WILLIAM MANN
JAMES SANCHEZ (SBN 116356)
SEAN D. RICHMOND (SBN 210138)
[e-mail]
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
915 I Street, Room 4010
Sacramento, CA 95814-2608
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and SAMUEL D.
SOMERS, JR.

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20

ROBERT MANN SR., et al.,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Case No. 2:17-cv-01201-WBS-DB
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF
HEARING ON CITY DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(f), Plaintiffs Robert Mann Sr., Vern Murphy-Mann, Deborah
Mann, Zachary Mann, and William Mann (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Sacramento,
Sacramento Police Department, and Samuel D. Somers, Jr. (collectively, “City Defendants”) stipulate as
follows:

1

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Mann v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01201-WBS-DB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

I.

This action arises from the killing of Joseph Mann occurring on July 11, 2016.
On June 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint initiating this action. See ECF No. 1.
On July 14, 2017, Defendants John C. Tennis and Randy R. Lozoya’s (collectively, “Officer
Defendants”) filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Complaint. See ECF No. 12.
On September 19, 2017, this Court issued an Order denying Officer Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 23.
On October 11, 2017, Officer Defendants filed an appeal from the Court’s September 19, 2017,
Order denying Officer Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified
immunity. See ECF No. 28.
On October 25, 2017, City Defendants moved to stay this action, pending resolution of Officer
Defendants’ appeal. See ECF No. 34.
II.

23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS CONCERNING THE STIPULATION

City Defendants’ motion to stay is currently set for hearing before this Court on December 18,
2017. See ECF No. 34.
City Defendants’ counsel did not confirm Plaintiffs’ counsel’s availability to attend a hearing on
December 18, 2017, prior to filing City Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 34, and setting that motion
for a hearing on December 18, 2017.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is not available to attend a hearing on December 18, 2017, based on an out-ofstate vacation arranged and booked prior to the filing of City Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 34.

21
22

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL FACTS

III.
1.

STIPULATION

The hearing date set for City Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 34, shall be

CONTINUED to January 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., which is the next available date for hearing before
Judge Shubb that Plaintiffs’ and City Defendants’ counsel are available to attend.
2.

The continuance of the hearing shall not alter the parties’ briefing schedule based on the

previously-applicable December 18, 2017, hearing date. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) & (d). Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ shall file their opposition to City Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 34, by December 4,
2017, and City Defendants shall file their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to City Defendants’ motion to
2
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Mann v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01201-WBS-DB

1
2
3

stay, ECF No. 34, if any, by December 11, 2017.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 27, 2017

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

4
5

/s/ Mark E. Merin

6

By: __________________________________
Mark E. Merin
Paul H. Masuhara

7
8

Attorney for Plaintiffs
ROBERT MANN SR., VERN MURPHY-MANN,
DEBORAH MANN, ZACHARY MANN, and
WILLIAM MANN

9
10
11

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: November 29, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,

12

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

13

/s/ Sean D. Richmond
(as authorized on November 29, 2017)
By: __________________________________
James Sanchez
Sean D. Richmond

14
15
16
17
18

Attorney for Defendants
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and SAMUEL D.
SOMERS, JR.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

3
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Mann v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01201-WBS-DB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

IV.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(f) and good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulation is
GRANTED.
1.

The hearing date set for City Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 34, shall be

CONTINUED to January 22, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., which is the next available date for hearing before
Judge Shubb that Plaintiffs’ and City Defendants’ counsel are available to attend.
2.

The continuance of the hearing shall not alter the parties’ briefing schedule based on the

previously-applicable December 18, 2017, hearing date. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) & (d). Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ shall file their opposition to City Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 34, by December 4,
2017, and City Defendants shall file their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to City Defendants’ motion to
stay, ECF No. 34, if any, by December 11, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: November 29, 2017

/s/ JOHN A. MENDEZ
for WILLIAM B. SHUBB
JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

4
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Mann v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01201-WBS-DB