Ramirez v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 29

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting in part and denying in part 28 Stipulation Continuing Mediation Complainace Date and Discovery/Dispositive Motion Deadlines and Vacating Pretrial and Trial Dates. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

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
ANTHONY MOSCHETTI

8
9
10
11
12
13

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., State Bar No. 69888
DeWITT M. LACY, Esq., State Bar No. 258789
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Center
7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120
Oakland, CA 94621
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

14
15

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

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20

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

21
22
23
24

v.

Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE
DATE AND DISCOVERY/DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINES

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

25
26

Defendants.
Hon. Maria-Elena James

27
28
30
31
32

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE DATE AND
DISCOVERYDISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1

STIPULATION

2

Defendant ANTHONY MOSCHETTI, deputy sheriff for the County of Alameda, and plaintiff

3

ELISA RAMIREZ, Guardian ad Litem for A.S., a minor by and through their respective attorneys of

4

record, hereby stipulate as follows:

5

1.

The initial Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 13, 2012. At the

6

time of that initial conference, the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and SHERIFF GREGORY AHERN were

7

defendants to the matter. ANTHONY MOSCHETTI and SEARGENT K. RITTER had not been named.

8

Pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order issued on December 10, 2012, the Case Management

9

Conference was vacated and the following discovery and dispositive motion deadlines were set:

10

(A)

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Expert Reports to be served by 9/13/2013;

11

(B)

Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses to be served by 9/23/2013;

12

(C)

Non-Expert Discovery to be completed by 10/8/2013;

13

(D)

All Dispositive Motions shall be filed, served, and noticed by 11/7/2013;

14

(E)

The Court shall hear dispositive motions no later than 12/12/2013; and

15

(F)

Trial is scheduled for 4/14/2014.

16

2.

On January 8, 2013, the parties were assigned to H. Jay Folberg for mediation.

17

3.

By Order dated March 3, 2013, the Court approved the Parties’ stipulation to continue the

18
19
20
21
22
23

mediation compliance date until July 4, 2013.
4.

At this time, due to the procedural history of this matter, defendant is unable to comply

with the above deadlines for the following reasons:
(a)

The original Complaint named only the County and Sheriff Ahern as defendants.

No individual deputies were named, although Doe defendants were named.
(b)

On December 19, 2012, previous defendants filed a motion to dismiss the only

24

cause of action brought against the named defendants (the second claim for relief alleging a Monell

25

claim). On January 23, 2013, the Court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, leaving no named

26

defendants in the action, thereby preventing further discovery.

27

(c)

Plaintiff did not file a First Amended Complaint by February 5, 2013, the deadline

28
30
31
32

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE DATE AND
DISCOVERYDISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1

set by the Court. On April 3, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

2

By Order, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend on April 19, 2013. The same day

3

plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to substitute SERGEANT K. RITTER and DEPUTY

4

ANTHONY MOSCHETTI for Doe defendants. The First Amended Complaint has not been served on

5

either defendant.

6

(b)

In an effort to expedite this matter, defense counsel obtained authorization and

7

agreed to accept service of the First Amended Complaint on behalf of DEPUTY ANTHONY

8

MOSCHETTI effective the day this Court signs the foregoing stipulation continuing currently set

9

deadlines. Acceptance of service was predicated on plaintiff's counsel stipulating to a continuance of

10

these dates because absent continuance of these deadlines, defendants would suffer extreme prejudice in

11

their ability to conduct discovery and prepare for trial due to a lack of service of the First Amended

12

Complaint. Counsel for defendant extended this offer in May of 2013, and several more times in June,

13

July and August of 2013, but no agreement was obtained. Counsel for defendant is not authorized to

14

accept service of the complaint on behalf of SERGEANT K. RITTER as he is no longer employed by the

15

County of Alameda.

16

(c)

Previous defendant, County of Alameda, propounded written discovery on plaintiff

17

on January 15, 2013. However, the County was dismissed from this action on January 23, 2013.

18

Responses to the County’s written discovery would have been due February 19, 2013. Accordingly, no

19

further responses have been made to the County’s propounded written discovery.

20

(d)

Because no named defendants in the action remained after the Court granted the

21

Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff had no obligation to respond to remaining discovery previously propounded

22

by County of Alameda. Defendants will need to re-serve discovery requests on behalf of the newly

23

named individual defendants once served or upon signing of this stipulation. Defendant cannot depose

24

plaintiff until service or the signing of this stipulation and until written discovery responses are received.

25

(e)

Plaintiff’s counsel has been in back to back trials since July 9, 2013. Mr. Lacy

26

appeared as counsel for Plaintiff in Williams v. City of Merced, case no. 1:10-cv-01999-MJS before the

27

Honorable Michael J. Seng. Plaintiff’s counsel also appeared in trial in another separate and unrelated

28
30
31
32

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE DATE AND
DISCOVERYDISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1

matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California before the Honorable

2

William B. Schubb in DeOcampo v. City of Vallejo, et al., case no. 2:06-cv-01283-WBS from August 6,

3

2013 to August 23, 2013. That trial was originally supposed to end on August 20, 2013; however,

4

presentation of evidence took longer than anticipated by the parties. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel was

5

unavailable to meet and confer regarding this matter.

6

(f)

Plaintiff's counsel has now agreed to submit the following stipulation regarding

7

service of the complaint and a continuance of currently set deadlines. Upon the service of the First

8

Amended Complaint in this matter, named defendants reserve all rights to move to dismiss the complaint

9

on both substantive and procedural grounds.

10

(g)

A

further

extension

of

the

mediation

compliance

date

and

related

11

discovery/dispositive motion dates is therefore necessary to complete written discovery and take

12

necessary depositions.

13
14
15
16

5.

For all the good cause stated above, the parties respectfully request this Court extend the

deadline to complete mediation from July 4, 2013 to January 18, 2014.
6.

The parties further request the Court extend the currently set deadlines (other than the trial

date) as set forth below.

17

(A)

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Expert Reports to be served by 2/15/2014;

18

(B)

Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses to be served by 2/25/2014;

19

(C)

Non-Expert Discovery to be completed by 4/3/2013;

20

(D)

All Dispositive Motions shall be filed, served, and noticed by 5/3/2014;

21

(E)

The Court shall hear dispositive motions no later than 7/6/2014

22

7.

The parties further request the Court continue the trial date in this matter from April 14,

23
24
25

2014 to September 15, 2014.
8.

Alternatively, the parties respectfully request this Court vacate all presently set dates and

set a date for a case management conference to address scheduling issues.

26

9.

The parties respectfully request that the Court approve this stipulation and incorporate its

27

terms in an Order.

28
30
31
32

4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE DATE AND
DISCOVERYDISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2
3

Dated:

THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

4
By:

5
6
7

/s/ DeWitt Lacy
DeWitt M. Lacy
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELISA RAMIREZ, Guardian ad Litem for A.S.,
minor

8
9

Dated:

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT

10
11

By:

12
13

/s/ Michael Wenzel
Michael C. Wenzel
Attorneys for Defendant ANTHONY
MOSCHETTI

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32

5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE DATE AND
DISCOVERYDISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ

ORDER

1
2

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, and the parties’ having stipulated to same, the

3

parties’ stipulation is hereby APPROVED. The deadline for the parties to complete mediation shall be

4

continued until July 4, 2013 to January 18, 2014.

5

The Court further orders the following deadlines:

6

(A)

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Expert Reports to be served by 2/15/2013;

7

(B)

Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses to be served by 2/25/2013;

8

(C)

Non-Expert Discovery to be completed by 4/3/2013;

9

(D)

All Dispositive Motions shall be filed, served, and noticed by 5/3/2014;

10

(E)

11

(F)

The Court shall hear dispositive motions no later than 7/6/2014
VACATED.
Trial in this matter is continued from April 14, 2014 to September 15, 2014.

12
13

(G)

Pretrial 3/13/2014;Final Pretrial Conference 4/10/2014 VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

October 2, 2013
DATED: ________________

__________________________________
HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32

6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION COMPLIANCE DATE AND
DISCOVERYDISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Ramirez v. County of Alameda, et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-04852-MEJ