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)

Download PDF
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?