Prather v. Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING 35 Stipulation FOR ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/3/10. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2010)

Prather v. Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District et al

Doc. 36

Case3:10-cv-02120-JSW Document35

Filed09/02/10 Page1 of 2

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

CARLETON L. BRIGGS, SBN 117361 Law Offices of Carleton L. Briggs 740 Fourth Street, Suite 202 Santa Rosa, CA 95404-4421 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM A. PRATHER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. PRATHER, Plaintiff, vs. RODEO-HERCULES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; JOHN MILLS, an individual; WALTER TRUJILLO, an individual; J. R. STAFFORD, an individual; BETH BARTKE, an individual; and WILLIAM D. ROSS, an individual, Defendants. /

No. C 10-02120 JSW STIPULATION FOR ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON ________________________________ Date: N.A. Time: N.A. Courtroom: 11 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White First Amended Complaint filed: 5/21/10 Trial date: None

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2010, the Court issued the Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss, Document 34 in the above-entitled docket, granting in part and denying in part Defendant William D. Ross' motion to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff William A. Prather's Section 1983 claim with leave to amend, dismissing Prather's Section 1985 claim with prejudice but providing Prather leave to allege a conspiracy claim as well. The Court declined to dismiss Prather's state-law claims. No time limit for amendment was set. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Prather and Defendant Ross, through their designated counsel, that Prather shall not amend the first amended
1 STIPULATION AND ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:10-cv-02120-JSW Document35

Filed09/02/10 Page2 of 2

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

complaint herein and that Ross shall have 20 days from the date hereof to answer the remaining state-law claims.

DATED: September 2, 2010

/s/ Carleton L. Briggs CARLETON L. BRIGGS Attorney for Plaintiff William A. Prather
DATED: September 2, 2010 HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON & McLAY, LLP By: /s/ George E. Clause GEORGE E. CLAUSE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant William D. Ross ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45.X.B. I, Carleton L. Briggs, attest that concurrence in the electronic filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of September, 2010 at Las Vegas, Nevada.

/s/ Carleton L. Briggs

ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 3, 2010

_________________________________ HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 STIPULATION AND ORDER