Lopez, et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.
Filing
17
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES; ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on November 2, 2011. The Motion Hearing set for November 30, 2011 before Judge O'Neill is VACATED. (Munoz, I)
<![CDATA[
1
DENNIS R. THELEN, SBN 83999
KEVIN E. THELEN, SBN 252665
2
LAW OFFICES OF
LE BEAU • THELEN , LLP
5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300
Post Office Box 12092
Bakersfield, California 93389-2092
(661) 325-8962; Fax (661) 325-1127
3
4
5
KATHLEEN BALES-LANGE, #094765
County Counsel for the County of Tulare
TERESA M. SAUCEDO, #093121
Chief Deputy County Counsel
2900 West Burrell, County Civic Center
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone: (559) 636-4950; Fax (559) 737-4319
6
7
8
9
10
11
Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF TULARE, TULARE
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TULARE COUNTY
SHERIFF-CORONER WILLIAM WITMANN, AND
DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER LANDIN
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
19
MARIO LOPEZ JR., DECEASED,
THROUGH HIS CO-SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST, MARIO LOPEZ III AND
MICHAEL LOPEZ; ELIDA LOPEZ,
Individually; MARIO LOPEZ III, Individually;
and MICHAEL LOPEZ, Individually,
20
Plaintiffs,
17
18
21
COUNTY OF TULARE, a public entity,
TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, a public entity, TULARE
COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER WILLIAM
WITTMAN, in his individual and official
capacities, DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER
LANDIN, Individually, and DOES 1 through
20, Jointly and Severally,
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE
PARTIES; ORDER
vs.
22
CASE NO.: 1:11-cv-01547-LJO-SMS
23
24
25
26
Case Filed:
Trial Date:
September 14, 2011
None set
Defendants.
27
///
28
///
1
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
The parties to the above referenced action, subject to the Court's approval, hereby stipulate to
the following:
3
WHEREAS the parties desire to provide counsel for plaintiffs further time to prepare a response
4
to defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
5
WHEREAS counsel for plaintiffs provided a similar professional courtesy to counsel for
6
defendants in allowing defendants further time to respond to the Plaintiffs' Complaint;
7
WHEREAS counsel for plaintiff has multiple pressing matters that will prevent counsel for
8
plaintiff from preparing a full and complete response to defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
9
Strike on the currently set briefing schedule;
10
11
The parties HEREBY AGREE, subject to the Court's approval, to modify the time frames
relating to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike as follows:
12
13
1.
heard on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4;
14
15
2.
3.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, if any,
were previously set to be filed on or before Wednesday, November 16, 2011;
18
19
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike shall now be heard on Wednesday,
December 14, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4;
16
17
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike was previously scheduled to be
4.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, if any,
shall now be filed on or before Wednesday, November 30, 2011;
20
5.
Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
21
Strike, if any, were previously set to be filed on or before Wednesday, November 23, 2011;
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
6.
Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike, if any, shall now be filed on or before Wednesday, December 7, 2011;
3
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 2, 2011
LeBEAU • THELEN, LLP
6
7
By:
8
/S/ DENNIS R. THELEN
DENNIS R. THELEN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF TULARE
9
10
Dated: November 2, 2011
KATHLEEN BALES-LANGE
Tulare County Counsel
11
12
By:
13
14
15
16
/S/ TERESA M. SAUCEDO
TERESA M. SAUCEDO
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF TULARE, TULARE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TULARE
COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER WILLIAM
WITTMAN, AND DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER
LANDIN
17
18
Dated: November 2, 2011
HADDAD & SHERWIN
19
20
21
22
23
By:
/S/ MICHAEL HADDAD
MICHAEL HADDAD, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARIO LOPEZ JR.,
D E C E A S E D , T H R O U G H H IS C O SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, MARIO LOPEZ
III AND MICHAEL LOPEZ; ELIDA LOPEZ,
Individually; MARIO LOPEZ III, Individually;
and MICHAEL LOPEZ, Individually,
24
25
ORDER
26
Pursuant to its practice, this Court will consider defendants' motions to dismiss and strike on the
27
record, without a hearing. As such, this Court VACATES the November 30, 2011 hearing and does not
28
reset the hearing. This Court accepts the parties' revised briefing schedule, and the motions to dismiss
3
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
and strike will be submitted on the papers upon the filing of defendants' reply papers.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d
November 2, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
]]>
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?
