Hernandez v. City of Napa et al

Filing 139

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 138 Stipulation, filed by Richard Melton, Garth Bender, City of Napa. Trial set for 4/18/2011 08:30 AM, Motion Hearing set for 1/25/2011 09:00 AM, Pretrial Conference set for 3/29/2011 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Laporte on 12/6/10. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2010)

Hernandez v. City of Napa et al

Doc. 139

Case3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document138

Filed12/02/10 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney, State Bar No. 155968 David C. Jones, Deputy City Attorney, State Bar No. 129881 NAPA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CITY OF NAPA P.O. Box 660 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT The Waterfront Building 2749 Hyde Street San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF NAPA, POLICE CHIEF RICHARD MELTON And OFFICER GARTH BENDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LUZ HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF NAPA, et al., Defendants. Case No.: C09-2782 EDL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS CITY OF NAPA, POLICE CHIEF RICHARD MELTON And OFFICER GARTH BENDER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, JOINDER BY DEFENDANT HALLMAN and RELATED DISCOVERY , PRETRIAL and TRIAL MATTERS AS MODIFIED

Following the July 20th hearing on the City of Napa's Motion to Birfurcate Monell Discovery and Trial, and Plaintiff's Discovery Motion to Compel, it was ordered by the Court that the parties meet and confer on a cooperative discovery plan including Monell discovery and plaintiff's damages claims. The parties agreed on a cooperative discovery plan and discovery has continued based on that cooperative agreement. The parties continue to meet and confer on completion of this fact discovery. In addition the parties have been working with the Deputy Attorney General of the State

of California representing plaintiff's employer Napa State Hospital on production of plaintiff's personnel file and documents relevant to her wage loss claims. This discovery has not been
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MSJ
Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document138

Filed12/02/10 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

completed but the parties are cooperating and depositions of Napa State Hospital persons most knowledgeable may be necessary. Additionally, Mr. Fox, counsel for defendants in the above

captioned matter, completed on November 9, 2010 a jury trial in Alameda County Superior Court, Department 607, Fremont, California that commenced October 1, 2010 (in recess October 13

through October 15) (Dunn v. City of Fremont, Case No. RG08415820). Plaintiff's counsel has also been involved in three criminal trials during this time period and was out of the state during early November, 2010. Because necessary critical fact discovery, including Monell discovery, has not been completed all of the parties have agreed and HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective undersigned attorneys of record, that the date for the hearing on the defendants CITY OF NAPA, POLICE CHIEF RICHARD MELTON And OFFICER GARTH BENDER's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the joinder in the Motion by Defendant Hallman, be continued from November 16, 2010 to January 25, 2011 (or that date convenient for the Court) The parties continue to cooperate on discovery matters, including fact witness depositions and related matters, but need additional time to complete this discovery. An extension of the discovery schedule as it pertains only to plaintiff and the City of Napa defendants, including expert discovery and related discovery practice, will allow the plaintiff and City of Napa defendants time to complete the outstanding discovery, prepare their experts, make expert disclosure and complete the briefing on the City's motion for summary judgment on terms that are fair and reasonable to both sides. It is the position of defendant Hallman that discovery and expert discovery as it pertains to plaintiff and defendant Hallman is closed. This

revised schedule also changes the pretrial conference and trial dates to allow sufficient time between the hearing on MSJ and pretrial conference date. In the alternative the parties ask for a trial setting conference at the conclusion of the hearing on the MSJ. The parties therefore agree and stipulate to the following schedule and, if the Summary Judgment hearing date is convenient for the Court, for an Order granting the stipulation be entered: November 12, 2010 January 4, 2011 Last day to efile Motion for Summary Judgment Last day to efile Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MSJ

Case3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document138

Filed12/02/10 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

January 11, 2011

Last day to efile Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing date of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Expert Disclosure between plaintiff and Napa defendants. Close of Expert disclosure between plaintiff and Napa defendants. Pretrial Conference

January 25, 2011 January 28, 2011 February 25, 2011 March 29, 2010

April 11, 2011 Trial (at the court's convenience) APRIL 18, 2011 Plaintiff also dismisses with prejudice her claims of unreasonable force during her handcuffing against all defendants. So Stipulated.

Dated: December 2, 2010 By:

LAW OFFICES OF TIM A. PORI /s/ TIM A. PORI Attorneys for Plaintiff LUZ HERNANDEZ

Dated: December 2, 2010

MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON

By:

/s/ KEVIN E. GILBERT Attorneys for Defendant JOHN HALLMAN

Dated: December 2, 2010

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT By: /s/ GREGORY M. FOX Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF NAPA, RICHARD MELTON, and GARTH BENDER

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MSJ

Case3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document138

Filed12/02/10 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 Dated: _December 2, 2010 5 6 7 Good cause appearing, 8

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a conformed signature ("/s/") within this E-filed document. /s/ Gregory M. Fox ORDER

THE STIPULATION IS SO ORDERED 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4

6 Dated: __December ____, 2010

__________________________________________ Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MSJ