Ortega v. Rodenspiel et al

Filing 12

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 11 Proposed Order filed by Joseph Alejandro Ortega Case Management Conference set for 1/26/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/24/10. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2010)

Ortega v. Rodenspiel et al

Doc. 12

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

GEOFFREY ROTWEIN (CA SBN 58176) LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY ROTWEIN 400 Montgomery Street, Second Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telefacsimile: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH ALEJANDRO ORTEGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH ALEJANDRO ORTEGA, Plaintiff, vs. KURT RODENSPIEL, et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-3239 EMC

STIPULATION FOR ORDER RESETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, ADR AND OTHER DEADLINES (Proposed) Current Hg./CMC Date: 12/22/2010 Pretrial/Trial Dates: Not Set CTRM: C, Hon. Edward M. Chen

STIPULATION The parties hereby represent to the Court and stipulate as follows: 1. On July 23, 2010, plaintiff filed his Complaint herein for damages resulting from violation of plaintiff's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, coupled with tort causes of action under California law for negligence, assault and battery, negligent training and supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress and for civil rights violations under California Civil Code section 52.1. The defendants are the San Mateo Police Department, the City of San Mateo and San Mateo Police Department Officer Kurt Rodenspiel. (Hereafter all dates are in 2010.) 2. All defendants accepted service and on August 18, they filed an Answer. 3. The Court's Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines issued July 23, setting October 13 for the meet and confer re initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection and a discovery plan, to file the ADR Certification and either file a Stipulation to ADR process or a Notice for an ADR Phone Conference; October 27 as the last day
STIP U L A T IO N AN D O R D E R STAY IN G AN D R E S E T T IN G IN IT IA L DEAD L IN E S AN D D A T E S N o . C V - 1 0 - 3 2 3 9 EM C

-1Dockets.Justia.com

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

for the FRCP Rule 26(f) Report, to complete the initial disclosures and file a Case Management Statement; and, November 3, for the Initial Case Management Conference. 4. Arising from the incident which is the basis for this civil action, Plaintiff was charged with felony offenses against two San Mateo Police Officers for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code section 245 in the San Mateo County Superior Court, in action titled People v. Joseph Alejandro Ortega, No. SC071032. The trial in this criminal case was set for November 1, and then continued to February 14, 2011. 5. On September 15, pursuant to Stipulation and request by the parties that all dates be postponed to occur following the final resolution of the criminal case, this Court ordered the parties to file a joint CMC statement by December 15 and reset the CMC for December 22. 6. On November 17, the Superior Court in the criminal action advanced trial from February 14, 2011 to December 6. Plaintiff's counsel believes that the case will take about two weeks, i.e., likely concluding no earlier than December 20. Therefore, the dates for filing the joint CMC statement and the CMC court hearing as presently set still are not feasible, and the parties request that the Rule 26 initial disclosures be due no later than 30 days after the final resolution of the criminal case, that the CMC hearing be set toward the latter part of January 2011, and the joint statement be filed one week before. 7. Both counsel continue to believe that the outcome of the criminal case will have a significant bearing on how this civil action proceeds, liability, discovery, ADR, and other pertinent aspects of pretrial proceedings and preparation for trial. Both counsel believe that it is premature to address the matters required by this Court's September 15 Order until the criminal case is resolved, and also believe that discovery should proceed pursuant to the California Penal Code criminal statutes instead of this civil action in order to avoid conflicts. 8. Plaintiff's counsel will immediately notify the Court and defense counsel when the criminal case finally concludes. /// /// ///
STIP U L A T IO N AN D O R D E R STAY IN G AN D R E S E T T IN G IN IT IA L DEAD L IN E S AN D D A T E S N o . C V - 1 0 - 3 2 3 9 EM C

-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

DATED: November 17, 2010

/s/ Geoffrey Rotwein GEOFFREY ROTWEIN At torney for Plaintiff JOSEPH ALEJANDRO ORTEGA /s/ Jeffrey M. Vucinich JEFFREY M. VUCINICH Attorney for Defendants KURT RODENSPIEL, CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ORDER Pursuant to the above Stipulation by and between the parties, and good appearing therefor: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the various present case management, ADR and discovery deadlines and dates set by this Court in its Orders dated July 23 and September 15, 2010, continue to be stayed until conclusion of the criminal case in the San Mateo County Superior Court, in action titled People v. Joseph Alejandro Ortega, No. SC071032. Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to advise this Court and defense counsel when the criminal case resolves, and that the Case Management Conference is continued to January 26 2011, and a joint CMC statement is due , 19 January , 2011. The parties are further ordered to comply with the initial disclosure requirements under Rule 26 no later than 30 days following the final resolution of the criminal case. DATED: November 24 , 2010

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

J

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

STIP U L A T IO N AN D O R D E R STAY IN G AN D R E S E T T IN G IN IT IA L DEAD L IN E S AN D D A T E S N o . C V - 1 0 - 3 2 3 9 EM C

-3-

A

C

LI

FO

ward M udge Ed

. Chen

R NIA

IT

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN MAGISTRATE/JUDGE RED U ORDE ONITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS S

RT U O

AS MO

DIFIED

NO

RT

H