Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco

United States District Court, N.D. California

January 28, 2014

KATHLEEN ESPINOSA, as a personal representative of the Estate of decedent ASA SULLIVAN; A.S., by and through his Guardian ad Litem, NICOLE GUERRA, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HEATHER FONG, in her capacity as Chief of Police; JOHN KESSOR, MICHELLE ALVIS and PAUL MORGADO, et al., Defendants.

DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney CHERYL ADAMS, Chief Trial Deputy BLAKE P. LOEBS, PETER J. KEITH, Deputy City Attorneys 1390 Market Street, San Francisco, California Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HEATHER FONG, in her official capacity, JOHN KEESOR, MICHELLE ALVIS and PAUL MORGADO

DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER [UNOPPOSED]

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

The Court continued the trial date in this matter from March 10 to September 8, 2014, but the final pretrial conference date was not continued and remains set for February 10, 2014. Defendants respectfully request that the pretrial conference be continued to either August 18 or August 25, 2014. Plaintiffs do not oppose the request. (Keith Decl. ¶ 3.)

BACKGROUND

This matter was set for trial in December 2013, but the Court continued the trial on its own motion to March 10, 2014, with a final pretrial conference set for February 10, 2014. (Doc. 347.)

After trial was set for March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a continuance due to Plaintiffs' counsel's pre-existing trial date, and Defendants stipulated to the continuance. The Court granted the stipulated request and continued trial to September 8, 2014. (Doc. 353.) However, the stipulation and order were silent concerning the final pretrial conference date, and therefore the final pretrial conference remains on calendar for its original date, February 10, 2013 at 2 p.m.

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Defendants respectfully request that the final pretrial conference be continued to a date closer to trial. Plaintiffs do not oppose the request. (Keith Decl. ¶ 2.)

Good cause exists because defendants' lead trial counsel, Deputy City Attorney Blake Loebs, is having back surgery tomorrow, the date of which just had to be advanced due to his increasing symptoms, and his recovery time is expected to last for more than three weeks, past February 10. (Keith Decl. ¶ 3.) Therefore, there is a need to continue the pretrial conference.

Defendants respectfully suggest that the final pretrial conference be continued to a date closer to trial. Defendants note that the Court already held one final pretrial conference and that many legal matters such as motions in limine were already resolved as a result. (Doc. 309 (civil minute order), Doc. 336 (further ruling on motions in limine).) Therefore, the parties and the Court have already obtained the benefit of an early final pretrial conference. Moving the currently scheduled final pretrial conference closer to trial would more effectively permit the Court and the parties to address logistics, scheduling, and any new matters that may arise over the next several months that will affect the conduct of trial. (Keith Decl. ¶ 4.)

Therefore, Defendants respectfully propose that the final pretrial conference be set for Monday August 18, 2014 at 2pm, or alternatively Monday August 25, 2014 at 2pm. Counsel anticipates not being available on August 11, 2014. (Keith Decl. ¶ 5.)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above Defendants respectfully request that the pretrial conference in this matter be continued from February 10, 2014 to either ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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