Hauschild v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 30

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING FOURTH (HARASSMENT) AND FIFTH (VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION) CAUSES OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND ALLOWING A 90-DAY DISCOVERY PERIOD ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (POBR VIOLATIONS) [F.R.C.P. 56] 24 29 (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

David M. Poore, SBN 192541
BROWN | POORE LLP
1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 420
Walnut Creek, California 94597
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
THOMAS HAUSCHILD

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHISN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THOMAS HAUSCHILD,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16
17
18
19

CITY OF RICHMOND; CHRISTOPHER
MAGNUS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-01556 WHA
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
DISMISSING FOURTH (HARASSMENT)
AND FIFTH (VIOLATIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION) CAUSES
OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND
ALLOWING A 90-DAY DISCOVERY
PERIOD ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF
ACTION (POBR VIOLATIONS)
[F.R.C.P. 56]
HON. WILLIAM ALSUP

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER [F.R.C.P. 56(F)]
HAUSCHILD V. CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01556 WHA

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to this action, Plaintiff THOMAS

2

HAUSCHILD, and Defendants CITY OF RICHMOND and CHRISTOPHER MAGNUS, hereby

3

STIPULATE that Plaintiff shall dismiss with prejudice his

4

Harassment, and his Fifth Cause of Action for Violations of the California Constitution with

5

prejudice. Defendants agree to continue the hearing date on their Partial Summary Judgment

6

motion (as to the Sixth Cause of Action) for 90 days to permit Plaintiff time to conduct discovery

7

on that Sixth Cause of Action which asserts violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural

8

Bill of Rights (“POBR”), California Government Code Section 3300 et seq.

Fourth Cause of Action for

9

With approval by this Court, this Stipulation should resolve the dispute set forth in

10

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 24), filed in response to Defendants’ Motion

11

for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17).

12
13

The parties are not making this request for the purpose of any undue delay, and no party
would suffer any prejudice if this stipulation was granted.

14

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties that Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth

15

Causes of Action to the First Amended Complaint shall be Dismissed with Prejudice. Defendants

16

agree to and do continue the hearing date on their pending Partial Summary Judgment motion for

17

90 days to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery as to the Sixth Cause of Action.

18

SO STIPULATED.

19
20

Dated: July 15, 2015

21

/s/ Geoff Spellberg
GEOFF SPELLBERG
MYERS NAVE
Attorneys for Defendants

22
23
24
25
26

Dated: July 15, 2015
/s/ David M. Poore
DAVID M. POORE
SCOTT A. BROWN
BROWN POORE LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28

-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER [F.R.C.P. 56(F)]
HAUSCHILD V. CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01556 WHA

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3
4
5
6

GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, the Stipulation is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Harassment and
Violations of the California Constitution) to the First Amended Complaint shall be and are hereby
dismissed with prejudice.

7
8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted to conduct discovery
for a period of 90 days on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17).
The new hearing date on the defense motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be November 19,

_______________
11 2015 at Eight A.M. 2015. Plaintiff’s opposition is due 28 days before the new hearing date.
12
13

Reply shall be due fourteen days thereafter.
SO ORDERED.

14
15

16
Dated: July __, 2015

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16
17

2466223.1

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER [F.R.C.P. 56(F)]
HAUSCHILD V. CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01556 WHA