Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz v. County of Sonoma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


January 24, 2012

RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL AND SIMEON AVENDANO RUIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SONOMA, SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, STEVE FREITAS,
CITY OF SANTA ROSA, SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOM SCHWEDHELM, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Thelton E. Henderson United States District Judge

BRUCE D. GOLDSTEIN, State Bar No. 135970 County Counsel 2 ANNE L. KECK, State Bar No. 136315 Deputy County Counsel 3 Office of the Sonoma County Counsel 575 Administration Drive, Room 105A 4 Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815 Telephone: (707) 565-2421 5 Facsimile: (707) 565-2624 E-mail: Anne.Keck@sonoma-county.org 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's 8 Office, and Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas 9 10

JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER:

(1) EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT,

(2) CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE, AND

(3) DEFERRING FRCP 26(a) & (f) COMPLIANCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

This joint stipulation is entered into by and between all named parties in this action, 23 including: Plaintiffs Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz (collectively, 24 "Plaintiffs"); Defendants the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, and Sonoma 25 County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas (collectively, "County Defendants"); and the City of Santa 26 Rosa, Santa Rosa Police Department, and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm (collectively, 27 "City Defendants").

Through this stipulation, these parties request the Court to enter an order: (1) 28 extending the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint filed in this action through and including April 16, 2012; (2) continuing the Initial Case Management Conference in this action, 2 currently set for March 19, 2012, to May 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.; and (3) deferring compliance with 3 FRCP Rules 26(a) and (f). The parties submit good cause supports these requests for an order, 4 pursuant to the following.

A. Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief in 7 this action on December 2, 2011 (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiffs believe that the Complaint and Summons 8 were effectively served on all named Defendants as of January 4, 2012. Defendants have agreed to 9 waive any defects in service in exchange for the agreements set forth in this stipulation. 10

California statutes, Plaintiffs are required to comply with the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil 12 RECITALS

B. In light of the fact that the Complaint presents facial constitutional challenges to Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 5.1. Such rule requires Plaintiffs to file a notice of constitutional 13 question, stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, and serve the notice and paper 14 on the Attorney General for the State of California (the "AG's Office"). Plaintiffs filed and served 15 such notice on the AG's Office on January 20, 2012 (Dkt. No. 14). 16 17 to the AG's Office that a California statute has been questioned in the Complaint. The AG's Office 18 is provided with 60 days in which to intervene in the case, from the date the notice is filed or the 19 court certifies the challenge (whichever is earlier). Accordingly, the parties expect that the 60-day 20 time period in which the AG's Office will be allowed to intervene in this case under Rule 5.1 will 21 expire after March 20, 2012. 22

23 response to the Complaint which will address, inter alia, the merits of the facial constitutional 24 challenges to the California statutes. To conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, and to 25 prevent the filing of duplicative papers or motions, the parties agree to continue the time in which 26

Defendants must file their motions to dismiss to permit coordination with the AG's Office with 27 respect to Plaintiffs' facial challenges to state statutes. 28

C. In addition, FRCP Rule 5.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 2403 provide that the Court must certify

D. Defendants have informed Plaintiffs of their intent to file motions to dismiss in 7 the pleadings in this case have not yet settled, the parties also request that the Initial Case 8

E. Based on information currently available, the parties agree to the following schedule:

Motions to Dismiss due: April 16, 2012

Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss due: April 30, 2012

Replies re Motions to Dismiss due: May 7, 2012

Hearings on Motions to Dismiss: May 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

F. To further conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, and due to the fact that Management Conference currently scheduled to be held on March 19, 2012, at 1:30 pm, be 9 continued to the same date and time set for the hearings on the motions to dismiss, on May 21, 2012, 10 at 10:00 a.m. In addition, counsel for County Defendants have informed the parties that she is 11 unable to attend the March 19, 2012, conference based on prior scheduling conflicts. The parties 12 will file a joint case management conference statement at least one week prior to the conference. 13

26(a) until two weeks after the Initial Case Management Conference has been held, or later as the 15 parties may otherwise agree. In addition, the parties have agreed to defer holding a FRCP Rule 26(f) 16 conference until approximately two weeks prior to the Case Management Conference date, and to 17 file the Rule 26(f) Report concurrently with the joint case management conference statement. 18

Deferring these discovery protocols is warranted at this time, as the parties expect that the Court's 19 resolution of the motions to dismiss will provide them with further information regarding the 20 parameters of this action and the appropriate scope of discovery. 21

Rule 23 after the Court has resolved the motions to dismiss to be filed by Defendants. The parties 23 agree that resolution of the motions to dismiss are appropriate pending the filing of Plaintiffs' 24 request for class certification. 25 follows:

G. The parties have agreed to defer the exchange of initial disclosure under FRCP Rule

H. Plaintiffs intend to seek an order certifying this action as a class action under FRCP

WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as STIPULATION

1. The time in which Defendants may file their responses to the Complaint in this case is requested to be extended through and including April 16, 2012. 4

2. The Initial Case Management Conference for this case, currently scheduled to occur 5 on March 19, 2012, is requested to be continued to May 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., so that it may be 6 held at the same date and time as the hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss. The parties shall 7 file a joint case management conference statement at least one week prior to the conference. 8

3. The parties agree and request to defer the exchange of initial disclosures under FRCP Rule 26(a) until two weeks after the Initial Case Management Conference has been held (at a 10 minimum); the parties request that no additional court order be required to further continue such date 11 if the parties so agree in writing. 12

4. The parties agree and request to defer the FRCP Rule 26(f) conference until 13 approximately two weeks prior to the Case Management Conference date; the Rule 26(f) Report 14 shall be filed concurrently with the Joint Case Management Conference Statement.

5. This stipulation does not prevent or preclude the parties from seeking additional relief 16 from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or otherwise, which may be warranted in the 17 event the AG's Office decides to intervene in this case. 18

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing, 3 it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The time in which Defendants may file their responses to the Complaint in this case is extended through and including April 16, 2012.

2. The Initial Case Management Conference for this case, currently scheduled to occur 1:30 p.m. on March 19, 2012, is continued to May 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case 8 management conference statement at least one week prior to the conference.

disclosures

3. The exchange of initial disclosure under FRCP Rule 26(a) will be deferred until two 10 weeks after the Initial Case Management Conference has been held (at a minimum); no additional 11 court order is required to further continue such date if the parties so agree in writing. 12

4. The FRCP Rule 26(f) conference will be deferred until approximately two weeks 13 prior to the Case Management Conference date; the FRCP Rule 26(f) Report shall be filed 14 concurrently with the joint case management conference statement. 15

IT IS SO ORDERED. ES DIST

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

N E. Henderson Judge Thelton

20120124

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.