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 ...