Righetti v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 86

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 83 for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 82 Amended Complaint, /Stipulation and Request to Extend Time for STate Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by S alinas Valley State Prison, Marcella Zuniga, Anthony Hedgpeth, Gerald Righetti, Charles Dudley Lee, Peter Chalich, Mark Hudson, Kathleen Wall, Michael Evans, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Michael Sepulveda. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/29/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JOHN P. DEVINE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MICAH C. E. OSGOOD
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 255239
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for State Defendants

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

GERALD S. RIGHETTI,

v.

CV 11-2717 EMC
Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO
EXTEND TIME FOR STATE
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT ; ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION ET AL.,

Courtroom: 5 (17th Floor)
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
Defendants. Trial Date: None Set
Action Filed: June 6, 2011

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
STIPULATION AND REQUEST RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMEN. COMPL.(CV 11-2717 EMC)

1

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiff Gerald S. Righetti and the State

2

Defendants1 by and through their counsel hereby stipulate to and request that the State

3

Defendants have until fourteen days after the parties’ next Case Management Conference

4

(currently set for January 3, 2012), to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended

5

Complaint.

6
7

Dated: November 29, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JOHN P. DEVINE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

8
9
10

/s/ Micah C.E. Osgood

11

MICAH C. E. OSGOOD
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for State Defendants

12
13
Dated: November 29, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Meghan Woodsome2

15

DARIN SNYDER
MEGHAN WOODSOME
DIXIE NOONAN
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gerald S. Righetti

16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/29/12
DATE:_____________

____________________________
DERED
United States District Judge
SO OR
T IS

NO

23

H

27
28

2

FO

J
The State Defendants comprise Warden Michael Evans, Warden Anthony Hedgpeth, Dr. C.
Dudley Lee, Dr. Michael Sepulveda, Nurse Kathleen Wall, Nurse Mark Hudson, Nurse Peter
ER
C
Chalich, and Nursing Assistant Marcella Zuniga.
N
F

1

25
26

. Chen

ward M
udge Ed

RT

24

I

R NIA

22

LI

21

UNIT
ED

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

19

A

14

D IS T IC T O
R

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Micah C.E. Osgood, attest that I have obtained the
concurrence of Megan Woodsome in the filing of this document and that I have and will
maintain records supporting this concurrence for production as required. /s/ Micah C.E.
Osgood
2
STIPULATION AND REQUEST RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMEN. COMPL.(CV 11-2717 EMC)

1

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

2

I, Micah C.E. Osgood, declare as follows:

3

1. At the hearing before the Court on the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court

4

stated that it would decide at the upcoming case management conference whether Plaintiff would

5

have leave to amend after opportunity to perform additional factual development and/or pursue

6

limited discovery.

7

2. Because of the need to file an amended complaint regarding other parties in this case,

8

Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint with new allegations as to those other parties.

9

But under the rules, the State Defendants are nevertheless required to respond to this amended

10
11

complaint despite the lack of any new allegations concerning them.
2. Granting this stipulated request would conserve the Parties’ and the Court’s resources by

12

obviating the need to relitigate the sufficiency of a complaint that has not been amended as to the

13

State Defendants and to which this Court has already issued an order.

14

3. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the State Defendant be allowed to defer

15

responding to the Second Amended Complaint until fourteen days after the next case

16

management conference, to the extent not otherwise affected by other orders of the Court.

17

4. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), the State Defendants and Plaintiff have stipulated to one

18

previous extension to the initial response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff and

19

the State Defendants are not aware of any effects on the schedule of this case caused by this

20

stipulation and request.

21
22
23

Dated: November 29, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

24

/s/ Micah C.E. Osgood

25

MICAH C. E. OSGOOD
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for State Defendants

26
27
28

SF2012402118
40579496
3
STIPULATION AND REQUEST RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMEN. COMPL.(CV 11-2717 EMC)