Joelle Burgess et al v. County of Mendocino et al
Filing
35
STIPULATION AND ORDER RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Re 34 Stipulation filed by County of Mendocino, KAITLYN OLSON. Settlement Conference set for March 9, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/22/2016. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Anne L. Keck, State Bar No. 136315
KECK LAW OFFICES
418 B Street, Suite 206
Santa Rosa, California 95401
Telephone: (707) 595-4185
Facsimile: (707) 657-7715
Email: akeck@public-law.org
Attorneys for Defendants the
County of Mendocino and
Sheriff’s Deputy Kaitlyn Olson
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOELLE BURGESS, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-02414-WHO
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
14
JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
v.
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
TO THE HONORABLE LAUREL BEELER, SETTLEMENT MAGISTRATE:
This Joint Stipulation is submitted by all named parties in this action, including: (1) Plaintiffs
18
Victoria Lee Dalbec, Jason Jay Havranek, Joelle Burgess, and Kara Marzan (collectively,
19
“Plaintiffs”); (2) Defendants the County of Mendocino and Sheriff’s Deputy Kaitlyn Olson
20
(collectively, “County Defendants”); and (3) Defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.
21
(“CFMG Defendant”).
22
By this Joint Stipulation, the parties request the Court to reschedule the settlement
23
conference currently set in this matter for January 9, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to one of the following
24
dates provided by the Court’s Courtroom Deputy: (a) February 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.; or (b) March
25
9, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. The parties submit that good cause supports this request, as set forth below.
RECITALS
26
27
28
A.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case on May 3, 2016, seeking damages related
to the death of their mother, Gloria Burgess, who was a jail inmate held in the custody of the
Joint Stipulation to Reschedule Settlement Conference, etc.
U.S.D.C. No. 16-cv-02414-WHO
1
1
Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiffs’ complaint avers causes of action based on 42 U.S.C.
2
§ 1983, common law negligence, and California Government Code § 845.6, generally related to the
3
alleged deliberate indifference to the decedent’s medical needs and interference with their familial
4
rights.
5
B.
All named parties have answered the complaint, and the Court (the Honorable
6
William Orrick presiding) has set a trial date for March 26, 2018. No motions are pending at this
7
time. A further case management conference is set for February 7, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.
8
9
C.
Pursuant to agreement of the parties, Judge Orrick assigned this case to Magistrate
Judge Beeler for purposes of settlement. On September 29, 2016, Magistrate Beeler issued a
10
“Notice and Order Regarding Settlement Conference” setting the settlement conference to occur on
11
January 31, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. (Dkt. No. 30).
12
D.
On December 20, 2016, the parties received via ECF a Clerk’s Notice which
13
informed them that Judge Beeler has a scheduling conflict on January 31st, and that the settlement
14
conference was advanced to January 9, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.
15
E.
Unfortunately, counsel for County Defendants, Anne Keck, has informed all parties
16
that she is not available during the period December 29, 2016 through January 9, 2017, as she will
17
be out of the country on a pre-paid (and non-refundable) vacation until January 10, 2017. Ms. Keck
18
filed a Notice of Unavailability with respect to those dates on December 20, 2016 (Dkt. No. 33),
19
after receiving the Clerk’s Notice. She has also consulted with the Magistrate Judge Beeler’s
20
Courtroom Deputy with respect to alternate settlement conference dates currently available on the
21
Court’s calendar, and has provided such information to counsel for all parties.
22
23
WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as
follows:
24
25
STIPULATION
1.
The parties request the Court to vacate the currently scheduled settlement conference
26
date of January 9, 2017, and to reschedule it to either of the following: (a) February 21, 2017, at
27
10:00 a.m.; or (b) March 9, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.
28
Joint Stipulation to Reschedule Settlement Conference, etc.
U.S.D.C. No. 16-cv-02414-WHO
2
1
2.
Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other
2
matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the
3
parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or
4
otherwise.
5
6
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: December 21, 2016
7
Keck Law Offices
By:
/s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck
Attorneys for County Defendants
8
9
Dated: December 22, 2016
10
Law Offices of Jerome M. Varanini
By:
/s/ Jerome M. Varanini
Jerome M. Varanini
Attorneys for CFMG Defendant
11
12
13
Dated: December 21, 2016
Law Offices of John L. Burris
By:
/s/ Benjamin Nisenbaum
Benjamin Nisenbaum
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation to Reschedule Settlement Conference, etc.
U.S.D.C. No. 16-cv-02414-WHO
3
1
2
3
4
5
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.
The settlement conference date of January 9, 2017, is hereby vacated, and the
settlement conference in this action shall be set for (check one):
6
___ February 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.
7
XX
___ March 9, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.
8
2.
9
a.m. 10:30 a.m.
All other matters set out in the Settlement Order issued on September 29, 2016 (Dkt.
No. 30) shall remain in effect.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
December 22,
Date: _____________2016
____________________________________
HONORABLE LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation to Reschedule Settlement Conference, etc.
U.S.D.C. No. 16-cv-02414-WHO
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?