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)

Download PDF
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?