Toschi v. Williams et al
Filing
27
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 26 Joint Case Management Statement, filed by S. Ramos, J. Gurkovic, J. Dionida, County of San Mateo, B. Boroja, Vu Williams, Michael Toschi. Joint Case Management Statement due by 5/1/2014. Case Management Conference set for 5/8/2014 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/18/14. (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JOHN P. DEVINE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
AMY W. LO
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 194308
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5524
Fax: (415) 703-1234
E-mail: Amy.Lo@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants CHP Officer Vu Williams,
CHP Officer B. Boroja, CHP Sgt. S. Ramos
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
OAKLAND DIVISION
12
13
14
v.
16
18
19
20
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Plaintiff,
15
17
Case No. CV 13-02781 PJH
MICHAEL TOSCHI,
CHP OFFICER VU WILLIAMS (#19084),
CHP OFFICER B. BOROJA (#10108); CHP
SERGEANT S. RAMOS (#15267);
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY J.
DIONIDA (#905), SAN MATEO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPUTY J. GURKOVIC
(#632), and DOES ONE to FIFTY, inclusive,
21
Date: February 20, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 3 (Third Floor)
Judge: Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Counsel for the parties jointly respectfully submit the following case status update and
26
respectfully request that the Court continue the upcoming Case Management Conference,
27
currently scheduled for February 20, 2013, until May 8, 2013 or the next available court date, as
28
follows:
1
Further Joint CMC Statement and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling CMC (CV 13-02781 PJH)
1
I.
2
CASE STATUS UPDATE
This case was filed on June 17, 2013 by Plaintiff Michael Toschi. Defendants California
3
Highway Patrol (“CHP”) Officers Vu Williams and B. Boroja and CHP Sergeant S. Ramos
4
(collectively, “CHP Defendants”) answered the complaint on September 9, 2013. Defendants
5
County of San Mateo, Sheriff’s Deputy J. Dionida, and San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy J.
6
Gurkovic (collectively, “County Defendants”) also answered on September 9, 2013.
7
The Initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was scheduled for November 21,
8
2013. In connection with the Initial CMC, counsel for the parties filed a Joint CMC Statement
9
with the Court on November 11, 2013. Docket No. 19. On November 21, 2013, the court held
10
the Initial CMC with counsel for all parties present. In the Civil Minutes of the proceedings, the
11
Court wrote, “The court grants the parties joint request to continue the case management
12
conference until February to see if the trial in the state court proceeding resolves before setting a
13
schedule.”
14
At the end of January 2014, counsel for the parties were advised that the criminal trial
15
against Plaintiff, previously scheduled for January 27, 2014, had been continued to April 1, 2014,
16
due to a change in the lead defense counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff spoke with Plaintiff’s lead
17
defense counsel in his criminal case, and the defense counsel stated that barring unforeseen
18
circumstances (e.g., lack of an available courtroom), she fully expects the criminal case against
19
Plaintiff to commence on April 1, 2014.
20
Since the Initial CMC, counsel for the parties have proceeded diligently with the case.
21
The parties have exchanged Initial Disclosures and entered into a stipulated protective order.
22
Counsel will continue with damages discovery and will attempt to negotiate whether any of the
23
legal issues raised in this case can be resolved by stipulation or whether a motion or motions will
24
be needed.
25
II.
26
STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC
Based on the facts set forth above, counsel for the parties stipulate to and respectfully
27
request that the Court continue the Further CMC in this case from Thursday, February 20, 2015 to
28
Thursday, May 8, 2015, or to the next available CMC date after May 8, 2015, to allow the
2
Further Joint CMC Statement and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling CMC (CV 13-02781 PJH)
1
criminal case to proceed against Plaintiff. All counsel further stipulate that they will file a Joint
2
Further CMC Statement with an updated case status with the Court on Thursday, May 1, 2014.
3
4
Dated: February 12, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JOHN P. DEVINE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
5
6
7
/s/ Amy W. Lo
8
AMY W. LO, Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants CHP Officer Vu
Williams,CHP Officer B. Boroja, CHP Sgt.
S. Ramos
9
10
11
12
Dated: February 13, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
GEARINGER LAW GROUP
13
14
/S/ BRIAN GEARINGER
15
BRIAN GEARINGER, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Toschi
16
17
Dated: February 12, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
18
JOHN C. BEIERS
SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL
19
20
/s/ David Levy
21
DAVID A. LEVY, Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendants County of San
Mateo, Deputy Jay Dionida, Deputy Jesse
Gurkovic
22
23
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
Further Joint CMC Statement and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling CMC (CV 13-02781 PJH)
PROPOSED ORDER
1
DATED: February 18 , 2014
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton
ED
United StatesISDistrict Judge
ORDER
IT SO
RT
H
ER
R NIA
NO
8
Judge Ph
amilton
yllis J. H
FO
7
_
RT
U
O
6
2014.
LI
5
to file a Further Case Management Conference with the Court no later than Thursday, May 1,
A
4
8
Thursday, February 20, 2014 is continued to Thursday, May ____, 2014. The parties are ordered
S
3
Good cause appearing, the Further Case Management Conference currently set for
UNIT
ED
2
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Further Joint CMC Statement and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling CMC (CV 13-02781 PJH)
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?