R. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District et al

Filing 49

STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Request to Extend Deadline to Complete Mediation re 45 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/5/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011)

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

G

IBEAUT, MAHAN & BRISCOE
GARY ROBERT GIBEAUT, ESQ. (State Bar No. 70951)
NANCY MAHAN-LAMB, ESQ. (State Bar No. 117997)
HANS ALBERT GILLINGER, ESQ. (State Bar No. 243973)
[e-mail]
KAREN J. MANABO, ESQ. (State Bar No. 274527)
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 611
Los Angeles, California 90045
Telephone: [phone] ♦ Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants, MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DR. THOMAS FRIED, and CHRISTOPHER RIZZUTO
RUDERMAN AND KNOX
CHRISTIAN KNOX, ESQ.
2020 Hurley Way, Suite 405
Sacramento, California 95825
Telephone: [phone] ♦ Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, CAYLA R., by and through her Conservator,
CATHLEEN R.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA –SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

CAYLA R., by and through her
18 Conservator, CATHLEEN R.

Case No. CV 5:10-CV-04312-EJD

19

STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO COMPLETE
MEDIATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER

20

Honorable Edward J. Davila

Plaintiffs,
vs.

21

MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL
22 DISTRICT; THOMAS FRIED;
CHRISTOPHER RIZZUTO;

[filed concurrently with declaration of
Hans Gillinger]

23
24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION COMPLETION DATE

1

WHEREAS on September 23, 2010, this Court issued a Case Management

2

Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, Re ADR

3

(document 2), which required plaintiff CAYLA R. (hereinafter “
Plaintiff” and
)

4

defendants MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, THOMAS FRIED,

5

and CHRISTOPHER RIZZUTO (collectively hereinafter “
Defendants” to meet and
)

6

confer regarding ADR selection;

7

Parties” met
)
WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively hereinafter “

8

and conferred to discuss ADR options (document 4, 5), and agreed to participate in

9

and select the ADR process of Mediation pursuant to ADR Local Rule 6

10

(Declaration of Hans Gillinger in support of the Parties Stipulation to Extend

11

Deadline to Extend Mediation Completion Date (See concurrently filed Declaration

12

of Hans Gillinger, Exhibit “ at ¶ 3);
A,”

13

WHEREAS on November 8, 2010, the Parties filed a stipulation and

14

[Proposed] Order (document 3) selecting Mediation, and agreeing to hold Mediation

15

by the presumptive deadline fixed by ADR Local Rule 6-4(b) (Id. at ¶ 3);

16

WHEREAS on January 26, 2011, Defendants filed a stipulation to extend the

17

deadline to complete mediation (Document 27) to allow the Parties to mediate this

18

matter on the agreed-upon date of May 13, 2011(Id. at ¶ 8);

19

WHEREAS on January 28, 2011, this Court issued its order (Document 30)

20

granting the Parties’request to amend the deadline to complete mediation to May

21

20, 2011 to allow the Parties to mediate this matter on May 13, 2011, the date

22

mutually selected by the Parties (Id. at ¶ 9);

23

WHEREAS on March 10, 2011, this Court issued its order (Document 38)

24

(“
Order” ruling on Defendants’motion to dismiss the Complaint, which dismissed
)

25

all claims in the Complaint. The Order granted Plaintiff leave to amend the

26

Complaint as to all three claims to perfect its deficiencies (Order at Page 7 at ¶¶ 3,

27

C) (Id. at ¶ 10);

28
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION COMPLETION DATE

1
2
3

WHEREAS on March 31, 2011, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended
Complaint (“
FAC” pursuant to Section 504 (document 39) (Id. at ¶ 11);
)
WHEREAS on April 14, 2011, Defendants timely moved for dismissal of the

4

claims in the FAC, and noticed the hearing on said motion for May 23, 2011, at 9:00

5

a.m. in the Honorable James Ware’ courtroom located at 280 South 1st Street, San
s

6

Jose, California (Document 40-2). Subsequently said previously brought motion

7

was re-set to September 26, 2011 by the Notice of the Clerk of the Honorable James

8

Ware (Document 41) (Id. at ¶ 12);

9

WHEREAS on April 25, 2011, this Court issued a Reassignment Order

10

(Document 42) vacating all pending and then-presently pending matters, and

11

ordering the Parties to re-file and re-notice any then-pending motions, (Defendants’

12

Rule 12 Motion (Documents 40, 40-1, 40-2) was the only pending motion at the

13

time), following reassignment of this case to the Honorable Edward J. Davila

14

(Document 42) (Id. at ¶ 14);

15

WHEREAS on April 25, 2011, Defendants withdrew its previous filed Rule

16

12 Motion pursuant to paragraph seven (7) of the April 25, 2011 Reassignment

17

Order (Document 42), and in accordance with Local Rule 7-7 of the Northern

18

District of California United States District Court (Id. at ¶ 15);

19

WHEREAS on April 27, 2011, Defendants timely and properly re-filed its

20

prior motion to dismiss and re-noticed said motion for hearing on August 26, 2011

21

at 9:00 a.m. before this Court located in Courtroom 1 on the 5th Floor of the San

22

Jose courthouse of the Northern District of California (Documents 44, 44-1, 44-2)

23

(Id. at ¶ 15);

24

WHEREAS on May 2, 2011, the Parties met, conferred, and agreed that

25

mediation must follow the Court’ ruling on Defendants’pending Rule 12 Motion
s

26

(Documents 44, 44-1, 44-2) in order to ascertain what, if anything, will be put in

27

issue by the FAC of Plaintiff, and the Parties further agreed that settlement efforts

28
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION COMPLETION DATE

1

are premature until after the Court rules on Defendants’pending Rule 12 Motion

2

(Documents 44, 44-1, 44-2) (Id. at ¶ 16);

3

WHEREAS on May 2, 2011, the Parties agreed to stipulate to a request that

4

this Court extend the deadline to complete mediation to a date no sooner than one

5

(1) month after the re-noticed August 26, 2011 hearing on Defendants dispositive

6

Rule 12 motion (Documents 44, 44-1, 44-2), if the Court grants the within requested

7

request to extend the mediation completion date (Id. at ¶ 16);

8

WHEREAS the rescheduling of the mediation completion date shall in no

9

way interfere with the progress of discovery or other aspects of the litigation and

10

shall not impact any dates set by this Court apart from the mediation completion

11

date (Id. at ¶ 17);

12

WHEREUPON pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d), ADR

13

Local Rule 6-5(a), and Civil Local Rule 7, the Parties stipulate to an extension of the

14

mediation deadline from the current date of May 20, 2011 to no sooner than one (1)

15

month after the re-noticed August 26, 2011 hearing on Defendants’dispositive Rule

16

12 motion. The Parties submit the following [proposed] Order to effect their

17

stipulated agreement.

18
19

DATED:

May 3, 2011

20

RUDERMAN AND KNOX
By /S/ CHRISTIAN KNOX__
CHRISTIAN KNOX
Attorneys for Plaintiff, CAYLA R., by and
through her Conservator, CATHLEEN R.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED:

May 3, 2011

GIBEAUT, MAHAN & BRISCOE
By /S/ HANS GILLINGER__
HANS ALBERT GILLINGER
Attorneys for Defendants, MORGAN
HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;
THOMAS FRIED; and CHRISTOPHER
RIZZUTO
-4-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION COMPLETION DATE

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
3

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties hereto, the Court GRANTS the

4

Parties’request and AMENDS the deadline to complete mediation to a date no

5

sooner than one (1) month after the September 30, 2011 hearing on Defendants
August 26, 2011

6

dispositive Rule 12 motion.

7
8
9

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

10
11

DATED:

May 5, 2011

12
13
14
15

Hon. Edward J. Davila,
District Judge of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION COMPLETION DATE

1

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

2

Pursuant to General Order No. 45(x)(B), I hereby attest that I have obtained

3

the concurrence in the filing of this document from all the signatories for whom a

4

signature is indicated by a “
conformed”signature (/S/) within this e-filed document

5

and I have on file records to support this concurrence for subsequent production for

6

the Court if so ordered or for inspection upon request.

7
8
9

DATED:

May 3, 2011

GIBEAUT, MAHAN & BRISCOE

10
11

By

12
13
14
15
16

/S/ HANS GILLINGER__
HANS ALBERT GILLINGER
Attorneys for Defendants,
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT;
THOMAS FRIED; and
CHRISTOPHER RIZZUTO;

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION COMPLETION DATE