Baker v. County of Santa Cruz
Filing
51
ORDER GRANTING 50 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE filed by County of Santa Cruz, Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement due by 10/12/2012. Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 10/12/2012 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. ***8/31/2012 Deadlines terminated. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/22/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)
<![CDATA[
S
6
Attorneys for Defendant County
of Santa Cruz
7
ER
R NIA
Davila
FO
w a rd J .
LI
d
J u d ge E
A
H
5
RT
4
D
RDERE
IS SO O
IT
NO
3
UNIT
ED
2
DANA McRAE, State Bar No. 142231
County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz
JESSICA C. ESPINOZA, State Bar No. 235941
Assistant County Counsel
701 Ocean Street, Room 505
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Telephone: (831) 454-2068
Fax: (831) 454-2115
RT
U
O
1
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
N
C
F
D IS T IC T O
R
8/22/2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
10
RICHARD BAKER,
Case No. 10-03925 EJD
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
16
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, a political
subdivision of the State of California and, DOES
1 - 25,
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE
PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE; DECLARATION OF
JESSICA C. ESPINOZA IN SUPPORT
Defendants.
17
18
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, plaintiff RICHARD BAKER and defendant COUNTY OF
19
SANTA CRUZ hereby submit this stipulation requesting an order to continue the preliminary
20
pretrial conference currently scheduled for August 31, 2012 for 45 days or until after defendant’s
21
Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“motion for
22
summary judgment”) is ruled upon, whichever is later.
23
24
25
26
27
This request is based on the following grounds: on May 1, 2012 defendant County filed a
motion for summary judgment which was taken under submission without oral argument on July 3,
2012. The parties agree that the outcome of the motion for summary judgment will significantly
impact the parties’ trial preparation and time estimates. At this time, the parties believe that
continuing the preliminarily pretrial conference until after the motion is ruled upon would result in a
28
more constructive pretrial statement and conference. Accordingly, given the potential impact of
Baker v. County of Santa Cruz, et. al., Case No. 10-03925 EJD
STIPULATED REQUEST TO
CONTINUE CONFERENCE
-1-
1
defendant’s motion for summary judgment on trial preparation, the parties stipulate and request an
2
order continuing the preliminary pretrial conference for 45 days or until after the motion for
3
summary judgment has been ruled upon, whichever is later. This time modification shall not impact
4
the trial date or any other scheduled date as no trial date has been scheduled and there are no
5
remaining deadlines.
6
This is the third stipulated request for an extension of time filed by the parties in this action.
7
The first stipulated request, filed on June 23, 2011, continued the discovery deadline four months
8
and did not impact the schedule of this case as the remaining deadlines and pretrial date had been
9
terminated pursuant to the reassignment order. The second stipulated request, filed on January 24,
10
2012, continued the settlement and pretrial conference 60 days and did not impact the trial date as no
11
trial date had been scheduled.
12
13
Dated: August 14, 2012
By:
15
16
/S/
RICHARD BAKER
Plaintiff In Pro Per
14
Dated: August 14, 2012
DANA McRAE, COUNTY COUNSEL
17
18
By:
19
20
21
22
23
24
/S/
JESSICA C. ESPINOZA
Assistant County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant County of
Santa Cruz
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Preliminary Pretrial Conference is continued from August 31, 2012 at 11:00 AM to
October 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM. The parties shall file a joint case management conference
statement on or before October 2, 2012
25
26
Dated: August 22, 2012
27
________________________________
United States District Judge
Edward J. Davila
28
Baker v. County of Santa Cruz, et. al., Case No. 10-03925 EJD
STIPULATED REQUEST TO
CONTINUE CONFERENCE
-2-
1
2
3
DECLARATION OF JESSICA C. ESPINOZA
I, Jessica C. Espinoza, hereby declare:
1.
I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of
4
California. I am employed as an Assistant County Counsel with the Santa Cruz County Counsel’s
5
Office, attorneys for defendants in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
6
below, and if called upon to testify thereto I could and would do so competently.
7
2.
The County filed a Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary
8
Adjudication (“motion”) on May 1, 2012. The motion was taken under submission without oral
9
argument on July 3, 2012.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3.
On August 13, 2012, I contacted Mr. Baker to draft the joint preliminary pretrial
conference statement. During that telephone call the parties established that the outcome of the
motion for summary judgment would significantly impact the parties’ trial preparation and time
estimates. Any discussion about the trial and related issues was speculative while the motion for
summary judgment/adjudication was pending.
4.
Accordingly, the parties agreed that continuing the preliminarily pretrial conference
until after the motion was ruled upon would result in a more constructive pretrial statement and
17
18
19
20
21
conference.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
information herein is true and correct. Executed this 14rd day of August 2012, at Santa Cruz,
California.
/S/
JESSICA C. ESPINOZA
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Baker v. County of Santa Cruz, et. al., Case No. 10-03925 EJD
STIPULATED REQUEST TO
CONTINUE CONFERENCE
-3-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
I, the undersigned, state that I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County
3
of Santa Cruz, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action.
4
My business address is 701 Ocean Street, Room 505, Santa Cruz, California 95060. On the date set
5
out below, I served a true copy of the following on the person(s)/entity(ies) listed below:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE
THE PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE;
DECLARATION OF JESSICA C. ESPINOZA IN SUPPORT
by service by mail by placing said copy enclosed in a sealed envelope and depositing the sealed
envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.
X
◇ by service by mail by placing said copy enclosed in a sealed envelope and placing the envelope
for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business
practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and
mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with
postage fully prepaid.
by personal service at a.m./p.m. at ___________________________________.
by express or overnight mail by depositing a copy in a post office, mailbox, sub-post office,
substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service
for receipt of express mail or a mailbox, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by an
overnight mail company, in a sealed envelope, with express mail postage paid addressed to the
below listed person(s).
18
by express or overnight mail by arranging for pick-up by an employee of an express/overnight
mail company on:
19
by facsimile service at the number listed below and have confirmation that it was received by:
20
21
22
Richard Baker
26028 Highland Way
Los Gatos, CA 95033
23
24
25
26
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August
14, 2012 at Santa Cruz, California.
______/S/________________
MARIA VARGAS
27
28
Baker v. County of Santa Cruz, et. al., Case No. 10-03925 EJD
STIPULATED REQUEST TO
CONTINUE CONFERENCE
-4-
]]>
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?
