Rodriguez v. Sanchez et al

Filing 24

ORDER RE 22 FOR POSEPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ADR PROCESS SELECTION. Case Management Conference set for 5/8/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/4/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (cl, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL (SBN 144282)
By: David A. Levy, Deputy (SBN 77181)
Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center, 6th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

5
6

Attorneys for Defendant
Officer Chris Sanchez

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

vs.
OFFICER CHRIS SANCHEZ,
REDWOOD CITY ADULT PROBATION,
MUNICIPALITY OF REDWOOD CITY,

Case No. CV 14 0062 RS
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
POSTPONEMENT OF CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR
PROCESS SELECTION; DECLARATION
OF DAVID A. LEVY IN SUPPORT
THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Defendant.

17

Defendant DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER CHRIS SANCHEZ request that the Court

18

postpone the Case Management Conference in this matter currently set for April 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.,

19

and requests postponement of the time to select a proposed ADR process.

20

The request is made on ground that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary

21

Adjudication hearing is set for April 17, 2014 in this Court, and that may well either eliminate the need

22

for a Case Management Conference or Alternative Dispute Resolution process, or significantly impact

23

the scope of either proceeding, depending on the Court’s ruling on the motion. Further, postponing the

24

Case Management Conference and a determination of ADR process may well conserve both judicial

25

resources as well as those of the parties.

26

Plaintiff has been unwilling to stipulate, despite exchange of numerous e-mails discussing the

27

issue. At one point plaintiff agreed to stipulate to postpone the determination as to the ADR process, but

28

did not expressly state his agreement to request continuance of the Case Management Conference. This
Case No. CV 14 0062 RS
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR PROCESS SELECTION;
DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LEVY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

morning, he advised that he thought “a positive recommendation from the mediator will would have

2

some weight with the judge’s decision on summary judgment.” Defense counsel tried to explain that

3

mediation was completely independent of summary judgment, but he would not change his mind. In

4

fairness, plaintiff is not an attorney and is representing himself, and so he may not understand completely

5

how either process works. Defendant’s counsel explained that this request would be made, and that

6
7
8
9

plaintiff’s position would be conveyed, and plaintiff thanked defense counsel for doing so.
There has been no previous request for continuance of the Case Management Conference or
determination as to ADR process. Defendant submits that this will not delay the litigation in the case,
and may result in a reduction of time and expense by the Court and parties.

10

Wherefore, it is requested that the Court continue the Case Management Conference for

11

approximately 30 days, consistent with the Court’s calendar, and postpone the parties’ requirement to

12

agree upon an ADR Process, or institute a telephone conference with the Court’s ADR staff until

13

approximately 15 days prior to the new Case Management Conference Date.

14

Dated: April 3, 2014

JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL

15
16

By:

17

/s/
DAVID A. LEVY

Attorneys for Defendant
OFFICER CHRIS SANCHEZ

18
19
20

DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LEVY

21

DAVID A. LEVY declares:

22

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the United States District Court for the

23

Northern District of California, and all California courts, and am attorney of record for defendant Officer

24

Chris Sanchez herein.

25
26
27
28

2. The Court ordered a Case Management Conference in the instant matter to be held on
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in the matter, a date which triggers meet and confer and filing requirements.
3. A Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication hearing is set for April 17, 2014 at
1:30 p.m. in this court.
Case No. CV 14 0062 RS

2

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR PROCESS SELECTION;
DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LEVY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

4. Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, but represents himself in this matter.

2

5. A postponement of the currently scheduled case management conference and date will

3

allow the Court to decide the pending motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication,

4

which potentially will dispose of the case. It is possible the motion would eliminate the need for the Case

5

Management Conference or the selection of a method of ADR.

6

6. Plaintiff has been unwilling to stipulate, despite exchange of numerous e-mails discussing

7

the issue. At one point plaintiff agreed to stipulate to postpone the determination as to the ADR process,

8

but did not expressly state his agreement to request continuance of the Case Management Conference.

9

This morning, he advised that he thought “a positive recommendation from the mediator will would have

10

some weight with the judge’s decision on summary judgment.” I tried to explain that mediation was

11

completely independent of summary judgment, but he would not change his mind. In fairness, plaintiff is

12

not an attorney and is representing himself, and so he may not understand completely how either process

13

works. I explained that this request would be made, and that plaintiff’s position would be conveyed, and

14

plaintiff thanked me for doing so.

15
16
17
18

7. No previous continuances of the currently scheduled Case Management Conference have
been sought or obtained.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and is executed on April 3,
2014 in Redwood City, California.

19
20

By:

/s/
DAVID A. LEVY

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CV 14 0062 RS

3

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR PROCESS SELECTION;
DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LEVY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

ORDER
The foregoing stipulation is hereby made an order of the court. The Case Management

3

May 8, 2014
Conference currently set for April 10, 2014 shall be continued to _____________________ at 10:00 a.m.

4

The parties will not be required to select an ADR process until further notice from the Court.

5
6

4/4/14
Dated: _________________________

7

_______________________________________
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
Judge of the U.S. District Court

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CV 14 0062 RS

4

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR PROCESS SELECTION;
DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LEVY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER