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)

Download PDF
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?