McCloskey et al v. Helmick et al
Filing
70
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND STIPULATION MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Pursuant to stipulation, the April 15, 2011 Case Management Conference is continued to August 12, 2011. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 4/12/2011. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
TOM BLAKE
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 51885
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5506
Fax: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Tom.Blake@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants California Highway Patrol
Officers Mike Courtnier and Jon White
JOHN L. BURRIS, SBN 69888
ADANTE D. POINTER, SBN 236229
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
Telephone:
(510) 839-5200
Facsimile:
(510) 839-3882
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sean Francis McCloskey,
Laiala McCloskey and D.M
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SEAN FRANCIS McCLOSKEY, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
v.
M. E. COURTNIER, J. WHITE, ET AL.
Defendants.
23
05-04641 MMC
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND
STIPULATION FOR ORDER
MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULE AND SETTING
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE; [Proposed] ORDER
CMC Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
April 15, 2011
10:30 a.m.
7, 19th Floor
24
25
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action, by and through
26
their respective counsel of record, and pursuant to all applicable statutes and rules, including but
27
not limited to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, and 40, as follows:
28
1
Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further
Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
(05-04641 MMC)
1
Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise out of a traffic stop wherein plaintiffs allege that two CHP
2
officers, defendants Courtnier and White (hereinafter collectively “defendants”), violated their
3
federal and state civil rights by unlawfully using an excessive amount of force against them.
4
5
The parties have participated in two settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge
Larson. A further settlement conference is anticipated but not presently calendared.
6
This matter had been continued in anticipation of the filing of a defendants' summary
7
judgment motion predicated on a recent Ninth Circuit decision that analyzes extensively the
8
amount of force used in traffic stops. The defendants believed (and do believe) that that case is
9
factually and legally on point. Pursuant to an earlier stipulation of the parties, the matter was
10
continued to allow defendants to bring a dispositive motion based on the then-new Ninth Circuit
11
opinion.
12
As defendants were about to file the summary judgment motion, the Ninth Circuit Court of
13
Appeals announced in Brooks v. City of Seattle, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3896202 (9th Cir. Sep 30,
14
2010) (NO. 08-35526) that the Circuit Court was granting a rehearing en banc, a possibility that
15
this Court had explored briefly with counsel at status conference. The grant of rehearing,
16
although thought unlikely by many observers, means that the three-judge opinion cannot now be
17
cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. As of the writing of this stipulation, the
18
Ninth Circuit has not issued it en banc decision in Brooks, supra.
19
Defendants believe that the en banc opinion may be dispositive; both sides believe that the
20
en banc decision will provide important guidance to the parties as they contemplate settlement
21
and to the Court if the matter proceeds to summary judgment or trial. Both sides therefore
22
respectfully request that this matter be continued for a further status conference. Due to
23
calendaring considerations in the offices of both counsel, including vacation plans of trial
24
counsel, both sides respectfully request that the further status conference be set for a date
25
convenient to the Court in approximately 120 days to allow time for hearing of the summary
26
judgment and for a further settlement conference after the Court of Appeals issues its en banc
27
decision.
28
2
Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further
Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
(05-04641 MMC)
1
2
Dated:
April 11, 2011
3
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
4
5
By:
/s/ Adante Pointer
ADANTE D. POINTER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sean Francis
McCloskey, Laiala McCloskey and D.M.
6
7
8
9
10
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of the State of California
11
12
By:
/s/ Tom Blake
TOM BLAKE
Attorneys for Defendants California Highway
Patrol Officers Mike Courtnier and Jon White
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further
Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
(05-04641 MMC)
1
2
[Proposed] ORDER
Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the Case Management Conference presently
3
set for April 15, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. be continued to __August 12 ______ , 2011 at 10:30 a.m. in
4
Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, for Further Status Conference.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 12, 2011
Date
HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further
Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
(05-04641 MMC)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?