Ramirez v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 10 Stipulation to extend time to answer complaint. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Thomas F. Bertrand, State Bar No. 056560
Michael C. Wenzel, State Bar No. 215388
BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and GREGORY AHERN

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

ELISA RAMIREZ, Guardian ad Litem for A.S.,
minor,

Case No. C12-4852-MEJ

14
Plaintiff,

15
16

v.

17

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]
ORDER

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., GREGORY
AHERN, Sheriff,

18
19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties in the above-captioned case, by and through their counsel of record, hereby represent
to the Court as follows:
1.

On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint initiating the above-captioned action

against the County of Alameda, Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Gregory Ahern.
2.

On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff served the Complaint on the County of Alameda,

Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Gregory Ahern by personal service.
3.

Defendants County of Alameda, Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff

Gregory Ahern’s last day to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint was October 18, 2012.
1
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al., United States District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1
2
3

4.

By Order dated October 25, 2012, this Court approved the parties’ stipulation extending

defendants' time to respond to the complaint to November 1, 2012.
5.

On October 26, 2012 counsel for defendants sent meet and confer correspondence to

4

plaintiff's counsel regarding requesting plaintiff dismiss certain causes of action from the complaint in an

5

effort to avoid a motion to dismiss.

6

6.

Prior to November 1, 2012, plaintiff's counsel indicated that he was agreeable to

7

amending plaintiff's complaint as requested, including dismissal of the Monell liability claim, and

8

indicated that he would prepare a stipulation and order for filing with the Court requesting leave from the

9

Court to file the amended pleading.

10

7.

Plaintiff's counsel provided a proposed stipulation and order on November 21, 2012

11

indicated that plaintiff would amend the original Complaint in this action and voluntarily dismiss the

12

following causes of action against Defendants:
a.

13
14

The zone of privacy charges, which appears in both the First and Second causes of

action in Plaintiff’s original Complaint;

15

b.

Fourth Cause of Action for Monell liability in Plaintiff’s original Complaint;

16

c.

Any claims for injunctive relief in Plaintiff’s original Complaint;

17

d.

Any state law claims imposing direct liability on law enforcement agencies for

18
19

negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision or discipline,
8.

Prior to the stipulation being filed, on December 5, 2012, plaintiff's counsel contacted

20

defense counsel and indicated plaintiff was now unwilling to voluntarily dismiss the Monell liability

21

claim contained in the complaint.

22

9.

Defendants intend to file a Motion to Dismiss that claim.

23

10.

To allow defendants time to file their motion, the parties therefore stipulate to extend the

24

time for defendants to respond to the Complaint through and including December 13, 2012, the date of

25

the initial Case Management Conference in this action. Defendant would have brought its motion to

26

dismiss earlier so as not to interfere with this Court's initial scheduling order but for plaintiff's counsel's

27

change in position regarding a voluntary amendment of plaintiff's complaint.

28
2
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al., United States District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1
2

DATED: December 5, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

3
By: /s/ DeWitt Lacy
John L. Burris
DeWitt Lacy
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELISA RAMIREZ, Guardian
ad Litem for A.S., minor

4
5
6
7
8
9

DATED: December 5, 2012

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT

10
11
12
13
14

By: /s/ Michael C. Wenzel
Thomas F. Bertrand
Michael C. Wenzel
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARMENT and
GREGORY AHERN

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al., United States District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1

ORDER

2

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

3

Defendant to respond to the Complaint shall be extended to December 20, 2012.

4
5
6
7

5
Dated: December ___, 2012
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MARIA-ELENA JAMES

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al., United States District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ