Jaegel et al v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 53

ORDER Granting 52 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference and Related Deadlines. Case Management Statement due by 1/19/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/26/2012 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2012 02:00 PM befo re Hon. Claudia Wilken. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/3/2012 02:00 PM. Jury Selection set for 4/16/2012 08:30 AM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Jury Trial (10 day)set for 4/16/2012 08:30 AM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/3/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MICHEL F. MILLS, SBN 193002
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHEL F. MILLS
A Professional Corporation
14121 Beach Boulevard
Westminster, California 92683
Tel. [phone] / Fax. [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
JOHN R. COGORNO, SBN 63966
ATTORNEY AT LAW
14121 Beach Boulevard
Westminster, California 92683
Tel. [phone] / Fax. [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

MARK ANTHONY JAEGEL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants,
)
____________________________________ )

Case No: C09-00242 CW

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE AND RELATED
DEADLINES
CMC Hrg. Date:
Time:
Courtroom:

June 9, 2011
2:00 p.m.
2

20
21

By Order dated October 12, 2010, this Court set the above referenced action for

22

Case Management Conference on June 9, 2011, at 2:00 p.m, in addition to many related

23

deadlines, pre-trial conference and trial.

24

The parties have been working diligently to complete discovery. All parties have

25

exchanged written discovery. Plaintiffs have received bankers boxes of documents initially

26

provided on CDs. These documents have been reviewed and continue to be reviewed

27

which are driving the need for further litigation. Depositions of Plaintiffs have been taken.

28
-1Stip. and Order To Continue CMC and Related Deadlines

1

Plaintiffs have taken the depositions of certain defendants and witnesses, some of which

2

have been completed and others to be scheduled.

3

One of the reasons the parties jointly seek continuance of the pretrial schedule is

4

their need for Court assistance in resolving a difference of understanding that developed

5

between them. Through the discovery process and through the parties’ effort to give class

6

notice, important differences arose between the parties regarding the definitions of the

7

classes this Court certified. In short, the dispute arises from Defendants’ counsels’ belief

8

“that the description of the class as set forth in the Court’s original certification order does

9

not conform to the certification order itself.” Defendants hold the opinion that the class

10

definition requires modification. Plaintiffs hold the position that the present definition is

11

accurate, and, if any modification is necessary, any such modification would only expand

12

the size of the class to comport with established Ninth Circuit law.

13

The parties have worked hard and in good faith to resolve these differences

14

informally and without court intervention. This disagreement has, however, prevented the

15

parties from reaching agreement the content of the class notice. This, in turn, has

16

prevented the parties from disseminating class notice. The parties agree that, despite their

17

best efforts to resolve these differences without need to burden this Court, the time has

18

come to seek the within continuance and to present the issues for determination by this

19

Court.

20

The undersigned hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court continue

21

the Case Management Conference and all pending deadlines as follows:

22

Date of next case management conference:

1/19/2012

23

Completion of Fact Discovery:

10/27/2011

24

Disclosure of identities and reports of expert witnesses:

11/16/2011

25

Completion of Expert Discovery:

12/16/2011

26

All case-dispositive motions to be heard at 2:00 p.m. on or before:

27

Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.

28

Plaintiffs’ opening brief due:

1/26/2012

11/17/2011
-2-

Stip. and Order To Continue CMC and Related Deadlines

1

Defendants’ opposition/cross motion (contained within a single brief) due:

12/15/2011

2

Plaintiffs’ reply/opposition to cross motion (contained within a single brief) due:

12/29/2011

3

Defendants’ reply due:

1/12/2012

4

Final Pre-Trial Conference at 2:00 p.m. on:

4/03/2012

5

A 10 day Jury Trial will begin at 8:30 a.m. on:

4/16/2012

6
7
8

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request and jointly stipulate to the above listed
continuances.
It is so stipulated.

9
DATED: 6/2/2011

/S/ Gregory J. Rockwell
GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ.,
Attorney for Defendants, COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA and PAUL LISKEY

DATED: 6/2/2011

10

/S/ John R. Cogorno
JOHN R. COGORNO, ESQ.,
Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: 6/2/2011

/S/ Michel F. Mills
MICHEL F. MILLS, ESQ.,
Attorney for Plaintiff

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ORDER

19
20

Satisfactory proof having been made, and good cause appearing,

21

IT IS ORDERED that the above listed continuances are granted, except that case

22

management conference will be held on Jan. 26 at 2 pm.

23
24

6/3/2011
DATED:___________________

______________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
US District Court Judge

25
26
27
28
-3-

Stip. and Order To Continue CMC and Related Deadlines