Zeigler v. Redwoods Community College District et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 17 Stipulation, filed by Todd Zeigler, Redwoods Community College District, Joe Hash, Amy Daily, Constance Carlson, Yokotobi Fusako. Signed by Judge James Ware on 12/5/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff
TODD ZEIGLER

6

9

13

S

es Ware

Attorneys for Defendant
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
YOKOTOBI FUSAKO, CONSTANCE CARLSON,
AMY DAILY and JOE HASH

m
Judge Ja

ER

H

12

RT

11

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

10

UNIT
ED

8

Eugene B. Elliot, State Bar No. 111475
Michael C. Wenzel, State Bar No. 215388
BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

RT
U
O

7

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

4

FO

3

LI

2

Peter Eric Martin, State Bar No. 121672
PETER E. MARTIN, A LAW CORPORATION
917 Third Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

A

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

TODD ZEIGLER

18

Plaintiff,

19

v.

20

Case No. CV 11-04849 NJV
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE
PLEADING BY INDIVIDUALLY NAMED
DEFENDANTS

REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, ABE ALI, BILL STUDT,
YOKOTOBI FUSAKO,CONSTANCE
CARLSON, AMY DAILY, JOE HASH,
Does 1 through 10,

21
22
23

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
BY INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS

1
2

The parties in the above-captioned case, by and through their counsel of record, hereby represent
to the Court as follows:

3

1.

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in this action against Defendants

4

REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ABE ALI, BILL STUDT, YOKOTOBI

5

FUSAKO, CONSTANCE CARLSON, AMY DAILY, JOE HASH in Humboldt County Superior Court.

6
7

2.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT.

8
9

3.

4.

On October 7, 2011, defendant REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to the causes of action brought against it.

12
13

On or about September 30, 2011 defendant REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT removed the matter to the United States District Court, Northern District.

10
11

On September 1, 2011, Plaintiff served the Complaint on the REDWOODS

5.

The Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed by the parties and is set for hearing on

December 19, 2011.

14

6.

Subsequent to the filing of that motion, counsel for the REDWOODS COMMUNITY

15

COLLEGE DISTRICT agreed to accept service of the complaint on behalf of CONSTANCE CARLSON

16

and JOE HASH, the only two individually named defendants still employed by the DISTRICT.

17
18

7.

CARLSON and JOE HASH is due December 7, 2011.

19
20

8.

9.

25

On or about November 18, 2011 defendant FUSAKO YOKOTOBI was served with the

Complaint. YOKOTOBI's responsive pleading is due December 9, 2011.

23
24

On or about November 15, 2011, defendant AMY DAILY was served with the Complaint.

DAILY's responsive pleading is due December 6, 2011.

21
22

Pursuant to that acceptance of service, the responsive pleading of CONSTANCE

10.

Counsel for plaintiff expects to serve the remaining individual defendants in the near

11.

The individual defendants served to date will be represented by counsel for the

future.

26

DISTRICT. Four of the five causes of action contained in the complaint are common to both the

27

DISTRICT and individual defendants. These individual defendants intend to move to dismiss the

28

complaint on similar grounds as those set forth by the DISTRICT in its pending Motion to Dismiss set
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
BY INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS

1

for hearing on December 19, 2011, and potentially on additional grounds with respect to the cause of

2

action brought solely against them.

3

12.

In the interests of judicial economy, and to avoid piecemeal litigation, multiple repetitive

4

Motions to Dismiss, and the potential filing of Motions to Dismiss on behalf of individual defendants

5

that will be rendered moot or unnecessary by this Court's ruling on the DISTRICT's pending Motion to

6

Dismiss, the parties have, subject to this Court's approval, stipulated to extend the responsive pleading

7

deadline on behalf of any properly served individual defendants represented by counsel for the

8

DISTRICT until twenty-one days after this Court issues its ruling on the DISTRICT's pending Motion to

9

Dismiss.

10

13.

The parties further stipulate that, if plaintiff is given leave to amend his Complaint

11

following this Court's ruling on the DISTRICT's Motion to Dismiss, that any properly served individual

12

defendants shall not respond to the original Complaint, but instead shall respond to any First Amended

13

Complaint at the same time as the DISTRICT, and as Ordered by the Court or as otherwise required by

14

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

15
Dated: December 2, 2011

PETER E. MARTIN, A LAW CORPORATION

16
By: /s/ Peter E. Martin
Peter E. Martin
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TODD ZEIGLER

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Dated: December 2, 2011

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT
By: /s/ Michael C. Wenzel
Michael C. Wenzel
Attorneys for Defendant
REDWOODS
COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
DISTRICT, YOKOTOBI FUSAKO, CONSTANCE
CARLSON, AMY DAILY and JOE HASH

25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
BY INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS

1

ORDER

2

Upon the foregoing Stipulation, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the time for

3

Defendants CONSTANCE CARLSON, JOE HASH, AMY DAILY and FUSAKO YOKOTOBI to

4

respond to the Complaint shall be twenty-one days from the date of this Court’s ruling on the

5

DISTRICT’s Motion to Dismiss, or as otherwise set forth by the Court in its Order upon the DISTRICT’s

6

Motion to Dismiss.

7
8
9

5
DATED: December ___, 2011

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
BY INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS