Molieri et al v. County of Marin et al

Filing 93

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL DATES. The remaining pretrial dates and the trial date are vacated pending the outcome of any appeal made by the parties in relation to the motion for reconsideration denied by order filed concurrently herewith. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 25, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS, State Bar #164194
Chief Trial Deputy
MICHAEL GERCHOW, State Bar #245706
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]

7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE SERGEANT R. COX;
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE SERGEANT J. O'MALLEY

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No. CV 10 5430 MMC

DANILO MARTIN MOLIERI, AND
DANIEL STEVEN MOLIERI,

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL
AND TRIAL DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.

Trial Date:

December 12, 2012

COUNTY OF MARIN, Marin County Sheriff's
Sergeant J. SCARDINA, Sheriff's Deputy
ERIC RICHARDSON, Sheriff's Deputy
BONDANZA; CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco Police
Sergeant R. COX; San Francisco Police
Sergeant J. O'MALLEY; and DOES 1-25,
inclusive
Defendants.

22
STIPULATION

23
24

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Defendants City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco

25

Police Sergeant R. Cox, San Francisco Police Sergeant J. O'Malley (the "San Francisco Defendants"),

26

the County of Marin, Marin County Sheriff's Sergeant J. Scardina, Sheriff's Deputy Eric Richardson,

27

Sheriff's Deputy Bondanza (the "Marin Defendants"), and Plaintiffs Danilo Molieri and Daniel Molieri

28

stipulate and jointly request continuance of the trial date based on the following:
STIPULATION TO STAY TRIAL
C-10-5430 MMC

1

c:\documents and settings\usdc\local
settings\temp\notes56fd74\~6584420.doc

1.

1
2

Trial for this matter is set for December 3, 2012. Pretrial preparation will begin this

week, with the parties required to meet and confer on Pre-trial Statements by October 9, 2012.
2.

3

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges intertwined causes of action arising from the conduct of

4

the Marin and San Francisco defendants regarding the same December 2009 domestic violence

5

incident.

6

3.

The parties filed motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication of issues

7

and are awaiting the Court's ruling on the San Francisco Defendant's motion for reconsideration. The

8

outcome of the Court's ruling will have a substantial impact on the remainder of the case and the trial.
4.

9

Whatever the outcome of the Court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration, the

10

losing party – whether the San Francisco Defendants or Plaintiffs – would likely file a notice of

11

appeal. An interlocutory appeal would divest this Court of jurisdiction over some of the San Francisco

12

Defendants. Alternatively, Plaintiff's appeal of a final judgment would leave open the possibility that

13

the San Francisco Defendants would proceed through the appellate process only to be instructed to

14

proceed to trial at a later date. Thus, under the current conditions, the Marin County Defendants

15

would proceed to a first trial on the current trial date, with the San Francisco Defendants potentially

16

defending a trial of the same issues at a later date. Of course, Plaintiff would have to prosecute both

17

trials.
5.

18

Plaintiffs and all defendants agree that should the Court proceed to trial at this time,

19

most if not all evidence presented at a trial involving only the Marin Defendants would be presented in

20

the same or similar format at a potential second trial involving the San Francisco Defendants. All

21

party and non-party witnesses would be called to testify in both trials, and documentary or other

22

evidence would be presented twice.
6.

23

Pretrial preparation and trial of the same case on two occasions would constitute

24

unnecessary cost to this Court and all parties and witnesses. The parties agree that this waste of

25

judicial resources, attorney time, and witness time is best avoided by a stay of the entire case,

26

including all pre-trial preparation and settlement dates, until the resolution of the summary judgment

27

motion on appeal.

28

///
STIPULATION TO STAY TRIAL
C-10-5430 MMC

2

c:\documents and settings\usdc\local
settings\temp\notes56fd74\~6584420.doc

1

Dated: October 3, 2012
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS
Chief Trial Deputy
MICHAEL GERCHOW
Deputy City Attorneys

2
3
4
5

By: /s/ Michael A. Gerchow
MICHAEL GERCHOW

6
7

Attorneys for San Francisco Defendants

8
9
10

Dated: October 3, 2012
PATRICK K. FAULKNER
County Council
RENEE GIACOMINI BREWER

11
12
13

By: /s/ Renee Giacomini Brewer
RENEE GIACOMINI BREWER

14

Attorneys for Marin County Defendants

15
16
17

Dated: October 8, 2012
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

18
19

By: /s/ John L. Burris
JOHN L. BURRIS

20
21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO STAY TRIAL
C-10-5430 MMC

3

c:\documents and settings\usdc\local
settings\temp\notes56fd74\~6584420.doc

1

ORDER

3

remaining pretrial dates and the
Having considered the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the trial date in this
are
^
matter is hereby VACATED pending the outcome of any appeals made by the parties in relation to the

4

motion for reconsideration currently pending before this Court. denied by order filed concurrently herewith.

2

5
6

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: October 25, 2012
By:

9

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO STAY TRIAL
C-10-5430 MMC

4

c:\documents and settings\usdc\local
settings\temp\notes56fd74\~6584420.doc