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.

Gregory Williams v. City of Merced; A Municipal Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (FRESNO)


January 2, 2013

GREGORY WILLIAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF MERCED; A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; MERCED POLICE OFFICER PINNEGAR (ID#215) INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF MERCED; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng U.S. Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS' REPLY BRIEF AND THE HEARING DATE

Honorable Michael J. Seng

The parties, Plaintiff Gregory Williams, and Defendants City of Merced, Officers Pinnegar, et al., by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate that the time for filing 3 all remaining documents and noticed hearing in this matter be extended by one week, i.e.: 4

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from December 28, 5 2012 to January 4, 2013; Defendants' Reply Brief from January 4, 2013 to January 11, 6 7 2013, and the hearing in this matter from January 11, 2013 to January 18, 2013.

1. This action arises out of an encounter between Plaintiff Gregory Williams 9 and Defendant City of Merced Police Officers, including Defendant Officer Pinnegar, in 10 Plaintiff's home on September 9, 2009, from which Plaintiff suffered injuries and was 11 ultimately arrested. 12

2. Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights on October 21, 2010.

3. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 14, 2012.

4. According to the Court's scheduling order, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due on December 28, 2012; Defendant's 18 Reply is due on January 4, 2013, and the hearing is noticed for January 11, 2013. 19

5. Due to the Plaintiff's counsels' heavy caseload, holiday schedule and 20 holiday travel plans, Plaintiff needs additional time in which to prepare Plaintiff's 21 22 Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Because extending time to file Plaintiff's Opposition Brief implicates all other deadlines in this matter, the parties request 24 that all remaining deadlines and the hearing date regarding Defendants' Motion for 25 Summary Judgment be extended by one week, as follows: Plaintiff's Opposition to 26 27 28 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment due on January 4, 2013; Defendants' Reply 2 due on January 11, 2013, and the hearing be held on January 18, 2013. 3 4

6. To date, no previous time modifications have been made in this case by stipulation or by Court order.

7. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff and the

Defendants, through their respective counsel, that the time to file the remaining briefs in this matter and the scheduled hearing date be extended by one week, as follows: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from December 28, 2012 to January 4, 2013, Defendants' Reply from January 4, 2013 to January 11, 2013, and the scheduled hearing from January 11, 2013, to January 18, 2013. 11 12 13

Dated: December 19, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 14 15 By:_/s/ Adante Pointer_ 16 Adante Pointer, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 18 Dated: December 19, 2012 LOW, BALL & LYNCH 19 20 21 By:__Kevin Allen_____________ Kevin P. Allen Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is so Ordered and the January 11, 2013 Hearing is continued to 25 January 18, 2013.

20130102

© 1992-2013 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.