United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, JOHN P. DEVINE, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AMY W. LO, Deputy Attorney General, State Bar No. 194308 San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for Defendants CHP Officer Vu Williams, CHP Officer B. Boroja, CHP Sgt. S. Ramos.
GEARINGER LAW GROUP, BRIAN GEARINGER, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Toschi
JOHN C. BEIERS SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID A. LEVY, Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendants County of San Mateo, Deputy Jay Dionida, Deputy Jesse Gurkovic.
FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Counsel for the parties jointly respectfully submit the following case status update and respectfully request that the Court continue the upcoming Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for February 20, 2013, until May 8, 2013 or the next available court date, as follows:
I. CASE STATUS UPDATE
This case was filed on June 17, 2013 by Plaintiff Michael Toschi. Defendants California Highway Patrol ("CHP") Officers Vu Williams and B. Boroja and CHP Sergeant S. Ramos (collectively, "CHP Defendants") answered the complaint on September 9, 2013. Defendants County of San Mateo, Sheriff's Deputy J. Dionida, and San Mateo County Sheriff's Deputy J. Gurkovic (collectively, "County Defendants") also answered on September 9, 2013.
The Initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") was scheduled for November 21, 2013. In connection with the Initial CMC, counsel for the parties filed a Joint CMC Statement with the Court on November 11, 2013. Docket No. 19. On November 21, 2013, the court held the Initial CMC with counsel for all parties present. In the Civil Minutes of the proceedings, the Court wrote, "The court grants the parties joint request to continue the case management conference until February to see if the trial in the state court proceeding resolves before setting a schedule."
At the end of January 2014, counsel for the parties were advised that the criminal trial against Plaintiff, previously scheduled for January 27, 2014, had been continued to April 1, 2014, due to a change in the lead defense counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff spoke with Plaintiff's lead defense counsel in his criminal case, and the defense counsel stated that barring unforeseen circumstances ( e.g., lack of an available courtroom), she fully expects the criminal case against Plaintiff to commence on April 1, 2014.
Since the Initial CMC, counsel for the parties have proceeded diligently with the case. The parties have exchanged Initial Disclosures and entered into a stipulated protective order. Counsel will continue with damages discovery and will attempt to negotiate whether any of the legal issues raised in this case can be resolved by stipulation or whether a motion or motions will be needed.
II. STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC
Based on the facts set forth above, counsel for the parties stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court continue the Further CMC in this case from Thursday, February 20, 2015 to Thursday, May 8, 2015, or to the next available CMC date after May 8, 2015, to allow the criminal case to proceed against Plaintiff. All counsel further stipulate that they will file a ...