Jimenez et al v. County of Alameda

Filing 60

STIPULATION AND ORDER re: 35 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing continued to 2/19/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/4/2015. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., SBN 69888
BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq., SBN 222173
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Center
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

LEILANI JIMENEZ, individually, and as
successor-in-interest for Decedent DENNIS
JIMENEZ; J.J., a minor, by and through his
guardian ad litem Leilani Jimenez; D.J., a
minor, by and through her guardian ad litem
Leilani Jimenez, and DENNIS JIMENEZ, Jr.
an individual,
Plaintiffs,

16
17
18
19
20
21

v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal
corporation and DOES 1-50, individually,
inclusive;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 13-04620 CRB
FURTHER STIPULATION AND
(PROPOSED) ORDER TO
CONTINUE DATE FOR HEARING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

22

STIPULATION

23

WHEREAS, Defendants in the above-entitled action filed a Motion for

24

Partial Summary Judgment in this action that was originally noticed to be heard

25

by the Court on August 14, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Docket #35)

26
27
28

-1Further Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1
2
3

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2015, the Court, pursuant to the stipulation of
the parties, continued the hearing on the motion and to September 18, 2015.
(Docket #45)

4
5
6

WHEREAS, on September 14, 2015, the Court, on its own motion,
continued the hearing on the motion to September 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
(Docket #46 and 47)

7
8

WHEREAS, on stipulation of the parties, the hearing on the motion was
again continued to October 9, 2015. (Docket #53)

9
10
11
12

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2015, the Court denied defendants’ motion
without prejudice in order to give plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to take the
depositions of two inmate witnesses, whose testimony counsel felt is necessary
to permit him to oppose the defendants’ motion. (Docket #54)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2015, the Court set a new hearing date for
defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of January 15, 2016. (Docket
#57)
WHEREAS, the depositions of the two inmate witnesses were taken by
plaintiffs’ counsel on October 16 and November 12, 2015.
WHEREAS, unless a party requests that the preparation of a transcript of a
deposition be expedited, it is common practice for court reporters prepare and
provide the transcript of a deposition to the attorneys within two (2) weeks of the
date of the deposition.
WHEREAS, to date, the court reporting firm contracted by the attorney for
the plaintiffs to report the depositions, Barbara J. Butler & Associates, has not
provided transcripts of either of the inmate witnesses to the parties.
WHEREAS, counsel for the defendants’ assistant, and defense counsel
himself, tried to reach Barbara J. Butler & Associates to ascertain the status of

27
28

-2Further Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

the deposition transcripts on November 23, 25 and 30, 2015, but they reached
only a voicemail system and did not receive a call back. It is presently unknown
when the parties will receive the transcripts.
WHEREAS, before refiling the motion for partial summary judgment,
counsel for the defendants wishes to have an opportunity to review both
transcripts and determine which portions of them need to be incorporated into
the motion and rewrite the motion accordingly. At present it appears unlikely
that he will have sufficient time to have the motion ready in time to be filed by
December 9, 2015, the deadline for filing the motion.
WHEREFORE, counsel hereby stipulate and request that the date for
hearing defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment be reset to February
19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., or to such later date that is convenient to the Court’s
calendar.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

15
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

16
17

Dated: December 3, 2015

18
19
20
21
22

Dated: November 30, 2015

By: /s/ Ben Nisenbaum,
Ben Nisenbaum
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Esq.

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE
By: /s/ Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.
Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants

23
24
25
26
27
28

-3Further Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB

1
(Proposed) ORDER

2
3

PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, good cause shown, date for

4

hearing the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is continued to February

5

19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:_____________
12/4/2015

___________________________
Honorable Charles R. Breyer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4Further Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Date for Hearing Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment
Jimenez v. County of Alameda; USDC-Nor. Dist. Case No. C-13-04620 CRB