Cannon v. City of Petaluma et al

Filing 84

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES re 83 Stipulation, filed by Chris Spallino, Bill Cogbill, Sonoma Police Department, Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, Bob Waner, Shawn Murphy, Eric Haufle r, County of Sonoma, Perry Sparkman, Jesse Hanshew, Jim Naugle, Stephen Passalacqua, James Casey, City of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sherrif's Department. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/7/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

BRUCE D. GOLDSTEIN #135970
County Counsel
ANNE L. KECK #136315
Deputy County Counsel
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive, Room 105A
Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
RICHARD W. OSMAN #167993
BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Sonoma Defendants

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

BENJAMIN PHILIP CANNON,
Case No.: CV 11-0651 PJH

18

Plaintiff,
STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT
ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED
ORDER

19
20
21
22
23

vs.
COUNTY OF PETALUMA, et al.,
Defendants.
/

24
25
26
27
28

This joint stipulation and request for entry of a modified order is made pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7-12 by and between the following groups of parties: Plaintiff in pro per, Benjamin Philip
Cannon (“Plaintiff”); the “Sonoma Defendants,” consisting of the County of Sonoma (including the
Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office), the City of Sonoma (including the Sonoma Police Department),
1

STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al., U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH

1

former Sonoma County Sheriff-Coroner William Cogbill, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputies James

2

Naugle, Christopher Spallino, Eric Haufler, Jesse Hanshew, Shawn Murphy, and Perry Sparkman,

3

former Sonoma County District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua, and Sonoma County Deputy District

4

Attorneys James Casey and Robert Waner; and the “Petaluma Defendants,” consisting of the City of

5

Petaluma (erroneously sued as Petaluma Police Department), and Petaluma Police Department

6

members Dan Fish, John Silva, Bert Walker, and Jason Jucutan.

7

Through this stipulation, these parties request the Court to modify Paragraph No. 10 of its

8

“Order re Motions to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement; Order re Motions to Strike,” filed on

9

September 15, 2011 (hereinafter, the “September 15th Order,” Dkt. No. 82), for the sole purpose of

10

providing Plaintiff an additional week in which to file his amended complaint, through October 12,

11

2011, and concomitantly extending the time for Defendants to respond to that amended complaint

12

through November 2, 2011, based on the following.

13

RECITALS

14

A.

In response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, in its September 15th Order this Court

15

dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims alleged in his First Amended Complaint with prejudice, and

16

granted Plaintiff leave to amend the remaining claims through filing a second amended complaint.

17

B.

The September 15th Order also expressly ordered Plaintiff to file any second amended

18

complaint no later than October 5, 2011, and ordered Defendants to file any answers or motions to

19

dismiss in response to such second amended complaint no later than October 26, 2011. [Dkt. No. 82,

20

¶ 10.]

21

C.

Plaintiff prepared a draft of his proposed second amended complaint and, at defense

22

counsel’s suggestions, provided an advance copy to defense counsel. On October 5, 2011, defense

23

counsel expressed concerns regarding several allegations and claims made in the draft second

24

amended complaint. Based on information provided by defense counsel and resulting conversations,

25

Plaintiff has agreed to substantially revise his draft second amended complaint by removing certain

26

allegations and claims from his draft before filing his second amended complaint with the Court, but

27

needs additional time in which to do so.

28

D.

Counsel for Sonoma Defendants and Petaluma Defendants have agreed to provide
2

STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al., U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH

1

Plaintiff with an additional week to substantively revise his draft second amended complaint to

2

remove certain allegations and claims, which will permit him to file it no later than October 12, 2011.

3

Defendants’ counsel believes that good cause exists for such extension of time, as it will provide

4

Plaintiff the opportunity to further limit the allegations and claims he intends to make in his second

5

amended complaint. However, based on conversations with Plaintiff to date, Defendants’ counsel do

6

not believe that Plaintiff’s intended revisions to his draft second amended complaint will satisfy

7

FRCP Rule 8 pleading standards. Accordingly, Sonoma Defendants and Petaluma Defendants at the

8

present time intend to file motions to dismiss in response to the proposed second amended complaint

9

even if modified as Plaintiff now intends.

10

E.

To permit Defendants’ counsel time in which to review the second amended complaint

11

that is filed and prepare their responses, Plaintiff has agreed to concomitantly extend the time for

12

filing such responses for one week through November 2, 2011.

13
14

WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order
modifying Paragraph 10 of this Court’s September 15th Order (Dkt. No. 82) as follows:

15
16
17
18

STIPULATION
1.

It is requested that Plaintiff be permitted to file his second amended complaint no later

than October 12, 2011.
2.

It is requested that Sonoma Defendants and Petaluma Defendants be permitted to file

19

their responses (including but not limited to answers and motions to dismiss) no later than November

20

2, 2011.

21
22

3.

This stipulation does not prevent or preclude the parties from seeking additional relief

from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or otherwise.

23
24

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: October 5, 2011

BRUCE D. GOLDSTEIN, Sonoma County Counsel

25
26
27

By: /s/ Anne L. Keck_______
Anne L. Keck
Attorneys for Sonoma Defendants

28
3

STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al., U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH

1

Dated: October 5, 2011

By: /s/ Benjamin Philip Cannon
Plaintiff in pro per

2
3
4

BENJAMIN PHILLIP CANNON

Dated: October 5, 2011

MYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

5
6
7

By: /s/ Kimberly M. Drake_______
Kimberly M. Drake
Attorneys for Petaluma Defendants

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al., U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH

[PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, and with good cause appearing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Paragraph No. 10 of this Court’s “Order re Motions to

4

Dismiss or for More Definite Statement; Order re Motions to Strike,” filed on September 15, 2011

5

(Dkt. No. 82), is hereby modified to permit Plaintiff to file his second amended complaint no later

6

than October 12, 2011, and to permit Defendants to file their responses to the second amended

7

complaint no later than November 2, 2011. All other terms and provisions of the Court’s Order shall

8

remain in full force and effect.
10/7/11
Date: _________________

S DISTRI

hyllis J.
Judge P

NO

13

RT

14

ER

n
Hamilto

H

15

DERED

16

R NIA

12

O OR
IT IS S

FO

11

LI

UNIT
ED

S

10

RT
U
O

CT
E
________________________________
C
AT
T
HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

A

9

N

D IS T IC T
R

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al., U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH

OF

C

1
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ATTESTATION

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

I, Anne L. Keck, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file
this STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER on behalf of
Plaintiff, Sonoma Defendants and Petaluma Defendants pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12. In
compliance with General Order No. 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from its signatories.
Dated: October 5, 2011

By: /s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck
Attorney for Sonoma Defendants

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al., U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2

I am employed in the County of Sonoma, California; I am over the age of 18 years and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 575 Administration Dr., Rm. 105A,
Santa Rosa, California. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.

3
4
5

On October 5, 2011, I served the following document in said cause,
STIPULATION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER TO EXTEND TIMES FOR FILING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES; [PROPOSED] MODIFIED ORDER

6

on the following interested parties:

7

Benjamin Philip Cannon
1083 Vine Street #215
Healdsburg, CA 95448

8
9
10

Said service was performed in the following manner:

11

BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (Mail): I placed each such document in a sealed
envelope addressed at noted above, with first-class mail postage thereon fully prepaid,
for collection and mailing at Santa Rosa, California, following the above-stated
business practice, on this date.

12
13

Executed October 5, 2011, at Santa Rosa, California.
14
15

/s/ Renee Cahoon
Renee Cahoon

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Cannon v. City of Petaluma, et al.
U.S.D.C. Northern District of CA Case No. CV 11-0651 PJH