UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
April 8, 2010
SEAN FRANCIS MCCLOSKEY, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
SPIKE HELMICK, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER MODIFYING THE CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL DEADLINES IN LIGHT OF PLAINTIFF'S PREGNANCY AND/OR MEDICAL EMERGENCY AND ORDER THEREON Trial Date: May 10, 2010 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 7, 19th Floor
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action, by and through their respective counsel of record, and pursuant to all applicable statutes and rules, including but not limited to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, and 40 as follows:
Plaintiffs' causes of action arise out of a traffic stop wherein Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Courtnier and White (hereinafter collectively "Defendants") violated their federal and state civil rights by unlawfully using an excessive amount of force against them. The parties have participated in two settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge Larson. The matter did not resolve.
According to the Court's April 17, 2009, Pretrial Preparation Order the parties must file their initial set of pretrial materials by April 13, 2010 and attend a Pretrial Conference scheduled to take place on April 27, 2010. Jury trial is set to begin on Monday, May 10, 2010.
However, it was recently brought to plaintiff counsel's attention that Plaintiff, Laila McCloskey, Mr. McCloskey's wife, is pregnant. According to the Plaintiffs, Mrs. McCloskey originally expected to deliver her baby at the end of May. Now, due to unforeseen circumstances, specifically, the baby's development and position in the womb Plaintiff's obstetrician recently advised Mrs. McCloskey that she may need to undergo a caesarian section in order to safely deliver her child. To that end, Mrs. McCloskey's obstetrician advanced Mrs. McCloskey's delivery date by two weeks, effectively placing the delivery date at or about the jury trial start date. Mrs. McCloskey's condition limits her ability to assist in preparation for trial, and is expected to do so for some time.
Defendants' counsel has recently become aware of a new Ninth Circuit opinion issued twelve days ago, Brooks v. City of Seattle, ___ F.3d ___ , 2010 WL 1135776, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3779, C.A.9 (Wash.), March 26, 2010 (NO. 08-35526). The defendants believe that the case is point and respectfully request an opportunity to bring a dispositive motion on a date convenient to the Court during July or August 2010.
In light of the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the remaining deadlines, hearings and jury trial dates be vacated and continued to a date convenient to the Court and the parties. The parties further request that the jury trial date be continued to a date convenient to the Court on or after September 13, 2010.
DATED: April 7, 2010
Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the pretrial filing deadline of April 13, 2010, the Pretrial Conference scheduled to take place on April 27, 2010, and the Jury Trial date of May 10, 2010 are vacated. It is further ordered that the following dates are A Status Conference is hereby SET for May 28, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Status Conference Statement shall be filed no later than May 21, 2010.
Hearing on Dispositive Motion: Friday, July 30, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.
Final Pretrial Conference: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.
Jury Trial to be held: Monday, September 13, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.