Ragan et al v. County of Humboldt Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 26

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER to continue deadline for plaintiff to file opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/23/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
150 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 200
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
PHONE [phone], FACSIMILE [phone]

7
8
9
10

Vincent W. Davis, Esq. (SBN 125399)
Daniel C. Sharpe, Esq. (SBN 267075)
Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates
150 North Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 200
Arcadia, California 91006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JEFF RAGAN and JANINE RAGAN
Nancy K. Delaney, Esq. (SBN 70617)
William F. Mitchell, Esq. (SBN 159831)
MITCHELL, BRISSO, DELANEY & VRIEZE, LLP
814 Seventh Street
P.O. Drawer 1008
Eureka, California 95502
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JEFF RAGAN, an Individual; JANINE )
) Case No.: 3:16-CV-05580-rs
RAGAN, an Individual;
)
) [Assigned for all matters to the
) Honorable Judge Richard Seeborg
PLAINTIFFS
) Courtroom 3]
v.
)
) JOINT STIPULATION TO
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, by and ) CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR
) PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION
through DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
AND HUMAN SERVICES; CONNIE ) DISMISS, OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
BECK, an Individual; KERI
) [PROPOSED] ORDER
SCHROCK, an Individual; ANN
)
SEAQUIST, an Individual; DOLORES )
HICKENBOTTOM, an Individual; and )
)
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
TO THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
-1-

1

Plaintiffs JEFF RAGAN and JANINE RAGAN, Defendants COUNTY OF

2

HUMBOLDT, CONNIE BECK, KERI SCHROCK, ANN SEAQUIST, and

3

DOLORES HICKENBOTTOM, by and through their respective counsels of record,

4

jointly request, pursuant to stipulation, that this Honorable Court continue the

5

deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Anticipated Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to

6

Dismiss, or, alternatively, for Summary Judgment.

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
150 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 200
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
PHONE [phone], FACSIMILE [phone]

7

This stipulation to continue the deadline to file Plaintiffs’ Opposition is based

8

on the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive the unredacted Memorandum of

9

Points and Authorities in support of said motion, nor the unredacted exhibits lodged

10

under seal, until after this Honorable Court signed and filed the Stipulated Protective

11

Order on January 17, 2017. See Docket No. 23. As such, there was a significant delay

12

between when Defendants filed said Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ counsel

13

received a complete version of the supporting documents and arguments, such that

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

Plaintiffs necessarily require an extension of time to allow for the fourteen (14) days
normally provided for filing an Opposition pursuant to L.R. 7-3(a) so that the Motion
may be properly opposed on its merits. Counsel of record for all Parties hereby
stipulate and agree as follows:
I.

TIMING OF MOTION AND DISCLOSURE

WHEREAS, this lawsuit was filed on September 30, 2016, alleging
deprivation of civil rights by individual defendants and asserting Monell liability
against the employing municipality, Defendant County of Humboldt, arising from the
actions and inactions of defendants related to a juvenile dependency matter. See
Docket No. 1.
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, the case was formally assigned to the
Honorable Judge Richard Seeborg. See Docket No. 11.
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2017, Waivers of Service were filed on behalf of all
defendants. See Docket Nos. 14-18.

27

WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, in

28

the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that as a matter of law

-2-

1

Plaintiffs should not be allowed to proceed with any of the asserted claims contained

2

in the Complaint. See Docket No. 22.

3

Whereas, because of the confidentiality surrounding juvenile dependency

4

proceedings generally, as well as the confidentiality of minor J.H. as identified in the

5

Complaint, Defendants filed a Motion to File Under Seal the unredacted Motion to

6

Dismiss as well as the Exhibits filed in support of the same. See Docket No. 21.

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
150 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 200
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
PHONE [phone], FACSIMILE [phone]

7
8

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2016, this Honorable Court granted Defendants
Motion to File Under Seal. See Docket No. 24.

9

WHEREAS, previously, parties met and conferred and agreed that disclosure

10

of the unredacted documents in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would be

11

sent by express mail or similar means immediately once a protective order was in

12

place to allow the transmission of such confidential documents relating to the

13

juvenile dependency proceedings. As part of this conference of counsel, it was

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

informally agreed that Defendants would stipulate to an extension of time in which to
allow Plaintiffs to file a responsive pleading, so as to allow the full statutory time
period to oppose the motion once Plaintiffs and their counsel were in full possession
of the unredacted documents previously filed under seal.
WHEREAS, Parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Protective Order on January
13, 2017, requesting that this Honorable Court allow counsel for the parties to freely
transmit confidential or otherwise sensitive juvenile dependency documents to each
other as necessary. See Docket No. 20.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2017, this Honorable Court signed and filed the
Stipulated Protective Order, pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation for the same.
See Docket No. 23.

24

WHEREAS, subsequent to the signing and filing of the Stipulated Protective

25

Order, counsel for the defendants caused the unredacted versions of documents –

26

previously filed under seal with this Honorable Court – to be transmitted to counsel

27

for Plaintiffs via UPS. Plaintiffs’ counsel received said documents on or about

28

-3-

1

January 18, 2017 and counsel for Plaintiffs first reviewed said documents on January

2

19, 2017.

3

WHEREAS, L.R. 7-3(a) for the Northern District of California expressly

4

requires that an Opposition to a pending Motion must be filed no later than 14 days

5

after the motion was filed. Based on plain language of this rule, Plaintiffs’ counsel is

6

presently obligated to file an Opposition no later than Friday, January 27, 2017.

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
150 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 200
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
PHONE [phone], FACSIMILE [phone]

7

WHEREAS, the delay of approximately six (6) days in obtaining the

8

unredacted Points and Authorities and the supporting exhibits, substantially prevents

9

Plaintiffs’ counsel from preparing and filing a thorough and complete Opposition to

10

the Motion to Dismiss by Friday, January 27, 2017.

11

WHEREAS, having met and conferred, counsel for all parties, in good faith

12

and in an effort to allow for full and fair litigation of the issues raised in Defendants’

13

pending Motion to Dismiss, or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, hereby

14
15
16
17
18
19

stipulate and agree to the following:
1. That the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their anticipated Opposition to
Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or, alternatively, Motion for Summary
Judgment, be extended continued one week, from Friday, January 27, 2017 to
Friday, February 3, 2017.
2. That the deadline for filing of Defendants’ Reply shall be February 10,
2017.

20
21
22

II.

REQUESTED ORDER

For the above described reasons, which demonstrate the diligence of parties in

23

working in good faith to litigate the issues set forth in both Plaintiffs’ Complaint and

24

Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, this Honorable Court issue an Order as

25

Follows:

26
27
28

-4-

1

Event

Old Date

New Date

2

Deadline to Oppose Motion to Dismiss

1/27/2017

2/3/2017

3

Deadline for Reply

2/03/2017

2/10/2017

4
5
6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: January 20, 2017

By:

DATED: January 20, 2017

By: /s/ Daniel C. Sharpe
Vincent W. Davis, Esq.
Daniel C. Sharpe, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
150 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 200
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
PHONE [phone], FACSIMILE [phone]

7
8

/s/ Nancy K. Delaney
Nancy Delaney
William Mitchell
Attorneys for Defendants

9
10
11
12
13
14

*** *
ORDER

15
16
17
18

Good cause appearing, based upon the Stipulation of the parties through
counsel, filing dates should be extended as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or,

19

alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, shall be due no later than February 3,

20

2017; and

21
22
23
24
25
26

2.

Defendants’ Reply to the Opposition shall be due no later than February

10, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: __________________
1/23/17

_____________________________________________
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Court

27
28

-5-