Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al
Filing
108
STIPULATION AND ORDER to Establish Briefing Schedule on Motion to Dismiss and Reschedule Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 10/11/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/21/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/20/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BRUCE D. GOLDSTEIN, State Bar No. 135970
County Counsel
ANNE L. KECK, State Bar No. 136315
Deputy County Counsel
Office of the Sonoma County Counsel
575 Administration Drive, Room 105A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2815
Telephone: (707) 565-2421
Facsimile: (707) 565-2624
E-mail: Anne.Keck@sonoma-county.org
Attorneys for Defendant Sonoma County
Sheriff Steve Freitas in his personal capacity
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH
RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL and
SIMEON AVENDANO RUIZ, individually
and as class representatives,
JOINT STIPULATION TO (1) DISMISS
BANE ACT CLAIMS AGAINST PERSONALCAPACITY DEFENDANTS, (2) ESTABLISH
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND (3) RESCHEDULE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
15
COUNTY OF SONOMA, SONOMA
16
STEVE FREITAS, CITY OF SANTA ROSA,
SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
TOM SCHWEDHELM, and DOES 1 through
20, individually and in their official capacities,
17
18
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED
Defendants.
______________________________________/
TO THE HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims Against Personal-Capacity
23
Defendants, (2) Establish Briefing Schedule on Motion to Dismiss, and (3) Reschedule Case
24
Management Conference, is submitted by the following parties in this action: Plaintiffs Rafael
25
Mateos-
26
County Sheriff Steve Freitas
27
the City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Police Department, and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom
28
Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims
Against Personal-Capacity Defendants, et al.
; and Defendants
1
U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH
1
Defendants the County of Sonoma, Sonoma
2
sued in his official capacity are
3
not parties to this stipulation, as this action is currently stayed as to all claims against them based on
4
their pending appeal. (See e.g., Order entered April 10, 2013, Dkt. No. 92.)
5
The parties to this Stipulation request the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) approving
6
§ 52.1,
7
against the individual defendants sued in their personal capacities; (2) setting a briefing and hearing
8
schedule for
9
conference, which is currently set to be held on August 26, 2013, to enable it to be held concurrently
; and (3) rescheduling the case management
10
with the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The parties submit that good cause supports their
11
requests, as set forth below.
RECITALS
12
13
A.
14
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages (the
action on August 7, 2013 (Dkt. No. 105). Plaintiffs have re-alleged several claims in
15
their SAC that the Court dismissed without prejudice in its Order Granting in Part and Denying in
16
Part Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 104), including but not limited to: (1) a
17
claim under California Civil Code §
18
capacity in Count 1; and (2) a claim against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity for due process
19
violations made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Count 4.
20
B.
Upon further consideration and pursuant to a discussion of counsel, Plaintiffs have
21
agreed to dismiss their Bane Act claim made against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity
22
contained in Count 1 of the SAC, and their Bane Act claim made against Defendant Santa Rosa
23
Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm
24
of the SAC. Upon such dismissal, no Bane Act claims will remain in the SAC against these two
25
individual defendants to the extent sued in their personal capacities; Bane Act claims shall remain in
26
the SAC only as to the entity defendants.
27
28
C.
Schwedhelm
in his personal capacity contained in Count 2
Sheriff Freitas has indicated his intent to file a motion to dismiss with respect to the
Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims
Against Personal-Capacity Defendants, et al.
2
U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH
1
due process claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 made against him in his personal capacity in
2
Count 4. The parties have agreed to a briefing and hearing schedule to address that motion.
3
D.
In addition, to conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, the parties request
4
that the further case management conference, currently scheduled to be held on August 26, 2013, be
5
rescheduled to enable it to be held concurrently with the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The
6
parties also request the ability to appear at the hearing and case management conference via
7
telephone.
8
9
WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as
follows:
STIPULATION
10
11
1.
12
California
13
contained in Count 1 of the SAC, and against Chief Schwedhelm in his personal capacity contained
14
in Count 2 of the SAC.
15
2.
Plaintiffs hereby dismiss from this action with prejudice their claims made under
Civil Code § 52.1, against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity
The parties request the Court to extend the time in which Sheriff Freitas in his
16
personal capacity may respond to the SAC, and to set the briefing and hearing schedule on his
17
motion to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claim contained in Count 4 of the SAC as
18
follows:
19
Motion to Dismiss due:
August 30, 2013
20
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss due:
September 26, 2013
21
Reply re Motion to Dismiss due:
October 7, 2013
22
Motion to Dismiss hearing date (proposed): October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
23
3.
In addition, the parties request the Court to reschedule the further case management
24
conference, currently set to be held on August 26, 2013, so that it may be held concurrently with the
25
hearing on the motion to dismiss on October 21, 2013, or such later date as is convenient for the
26
Court.
27
28
Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims
Against Personal-Capacity Defendants, et al.
3
U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH
1
2
3
4.
Counsel for the parties also request the ability to appear at the hearing on the motion
to dismiss and the case management conference via telephone.
5.
Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other
4
matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the
5
parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or
6
otherwise.
7
8
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: August 19, 2013
9
Bruce D. Goldstein, Sonoma County Counsel
By:
10
11
12
Dated: August 19, 2013
Caroline L. Fowler, Santa Rosa City Attorney
By:
13
14
15
Dated: August 19, 2013
/s/ Robert L. Jackson
Robert L. Jackson, Assistant City Attorney
Attorneys for City Defendants
Robert Mann & Donald W. Cook, Attorneys at Law
By:
16
/s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck, Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant Sonoma County
Sheriff Steve Freitas in his personal capacity
17
/s/ Donald W. Cook
Donald W. Cook
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims
Against Personal-Capacity Defendants, et al.
4
U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
3
4
Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.
The claims made under
California Civil Code § 52.1, against
5
Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity contained in Count 1 of the SAC, and against Chief
6
Schwedhelm in his personal capacity contained in Count 2 of the SAC, are hereby dismissed from
7
this case with prejudice.
8
9
10
2.
The time in which Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity may respond to the SAC
shall be extended, and the briefing and hearing schedule on his motion to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. §
1983 due process claim contained in Count 4 of the SAC shall be as follows:
11
Motion to Dismiss filed:
August 30, 2013
12
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss due:
September 26, 2013
13
Reply re Motion to Dismiss due:
October 7, 2013
14
Motion to Dismiss hearing date:
October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
15
16
3.
The further case management conference, currently set to be held on August 26,
2013, shall be rescheduled to October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., so that it may be held concurrently
17
A joint case management statement shall be
18
filed 7 days prior.
19
4.
Counsel for the parties may appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the
case management conference via telephone, pursuant to instructions to be provided by the Court.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
08/20/2013
Date: _____________
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
RT
U
O
S
20
AS M
RT
25
26
A
H
ER
rson
. Hende
helton E
Judge T
FO
NO
24
LI
23
R NIA
UNIT
ED
____________________________________
HONORABLEDERED
THELTON E. HENDERSON
O OR
UnitedIStatesDIFIED Judge
District
IT S S
O
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
27
28
Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims
Against Personal-Capacity Defendants, et al.
5
U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?