Free Motion to Continue - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 21

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6

HERMEZ MORENO, ESQ., SBN 72009 FRANK PEREZ, ESQ., SBN 205377 RICHARD T. COPELAND, ESQ., SBN 213605 MORENO & PEREZ A Professional Law Corporation 714 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Tel: (213) 745-6300 Fax:(213) 745-6060

Judy Perez, Esq., SBN 223019 LAW OFFICES OF JUDY PEREZ 7 453 S. Spring Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 8 Tel: (213) 622-3330 Fax: (213) 622-3335
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Attorneys for Plaintiff: HENRY KODIMER, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, LYN RAMSKILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HENRY KODIMER, by and through ) through his guardian ad litem, ) LYN RAMSKILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) CITY OF ESCONDIDO, COUNTY ) OF SAN DIEGO, OFFICER WYSE, ) OFFICER UMSTOT, SERGEANT ) DISTEL, AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1) THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, ) ) ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________________________ ) CASE NO.: 07CV2221 BEN (NLS) PARTIES' JOINT MOTION/ STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATES AND TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S 12(b)(6) MOTION (Proposed Order Submitted Concurrently Herewith) NO HEARING REQUIRED PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.2

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 21

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 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

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROGER T. BENITEZ AND/OR TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE NITA STORMES: Plaintiff HENRY KODIMER, by and through his guardian ad litem, LYN RAMSKILL, and through his attorneys, Moreno & Perez, Defendants CITY OF ESCONDIDO, OFFICERS WYSE and UMSTOT, and SERGEANT DISTEL, by and through their counsel of record, the Escondido City Attorney's Office, and Defendant COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, by and through its counsel of record, County of San Diego Office of County Counsel, do hereby stipulate and move the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 20, 2007 against Defendants, alleging Civil Rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, violations of the Americans' with Disabilities Act, and negligence; 2. Plaintiff served it summons and complaint on Defendants CITY OF ESCONDIDO, OFFICERS WYSE and UMSTOT, and SERGEANT DISTEL ("City Defendants") on February 15, 2008. 3. 4. The City Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint on March 6, 2008; On April 16, 2008, an Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE") Conference was held before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes with Plaintiff and the City Defendants. The Court Ordered that: a. b. c. A telephonic case management conference take place on May 30, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.; Following a Rule 26(f) conference on or before May 9, 2008, that the parties lodge a Joint Discovery Plan on or before May 19, 2008; and That initial disclosures in this matter be made on or before May 23, 2008; 5. On April 21, 2008, Plaintiff served the summons and complaint on the
2
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 21

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 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

County's Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 6. On May 7, 2008, Defendant COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12. Said motion is set for hearing on July 7, 2008; 7. On May 9, 2008, Plaintiff, by and through his counsel of record, Richard T. Copeland, and City Defendants, by and through their counsel of record Michael R. McGuinness met and conferred. Plaintiff's attorney contacted Defendant San Diego County, by and through its counsel of record, Ricky R. Sanchez, regarding the Rule 26(f) conference that was scheduled for a time prior to the County's appearance. During the course of the respective conferences, the parties agreed that since this case will not be fully at issue until a decision is rendered on Defendant County of San Diego's motion to dismiss, and that since Defendant County of San Diego will not be deemed to have generally appeared in this matter until an Answer is filed, that the Rule 26 Conference be continued, and discovery stayed pending the ruling on Defendant County of San Diego's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the parties do hereby stipulate, and jointly move the Court that pending disposition of the County's motion to dismiss: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. /// /// /// ///
3
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY

That the date for the Rule 26 conference be continued; That discovery in this matter be stayed; That the May 19, 2008 date for filing of a discovery plan be vacated and reset; That the May 23, 2008 initial disclosure date be vacated, and be reset; and That the May 30, 2008 telephonic conference be vacated, and be reset.

Case 3:07-cv-02221-BEN-NLS

Document 21

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 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

Dated:

May 19, 2008

MORENO & PEREZ A Professional Corporation By: /s/Richard T. Copeland RICHARD T. COPELAND, ESQ. Attorneys for PLAINTIFF

Dated:

May 19, 2008

CITY OF ESCONDIDO ATTORNEY'S OFFICE By: /s/Michael R. McGuiness MICHAEL R. MCGUINESS, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF ESCONDIDO, OFFICERS WYSE and UMSTOT, and SERGEANT DISTEL

Dated:

May 19, 2008

JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel By: /s/Ricky R. Sanchez, Senior Deputy Attorneys for DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

I, RICHARD T. COPELAND, hereby certify that the content of this Joint Motion/Stipulation to Continue Dates and Stay Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant Count of San Diego's 12(b)(6) Motion is acceptable to the parties whose signatures appear above, and that said parties authorize me to affix their CM/ECF electronic signature to this document.

4
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY