Garcia v. Yuba County Sheriff's Dept. ( 2022 )

1 Richard W. Osman, State Bar No. 167993 Fulvio F. Cajina, State Bar No. 289126 Sheila D. Crawford, State Bar No. 278292 LAW OFFICE OF FULVIO F. CAJINA 2 BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & 528 Grand Ave. WENZEL Oakland, CA 94610 3 The Waterfront Building Telephone: (415) 601-0779 4 2749 Hyde Street Facsimile: (510) 225-2636 San Francisco, California 94109 Email: fulvio@cajinalaw.com 5 Telephone: (415) 353-0999 Stanley Goff, State Bar No. 289564 Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 6 Email: rosman@bfesf.com 15 Boardman Place Suite 2 San Francisco, CA 94103 scrawford@bfesf.com 7 Telephone: (415) 571-9570 Attorneys for Defendants Email: scraiggoff@aol.com 8 CITY OF VACAVILLE, JULIE BAILEY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 CHUCK BAILEY, DUSTIN WILLIS, CARMEL GARCIA, M.Y. AND L.Y., minors by and DAVE SPENCER and through their guardian ad litem VANESSA 10 RUIZ; L.Y., a minor by and through his guardian 11 ad litem FRANCISCA URIOSTEGUI 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 CARMEL GARCIA, an individual; M.Y. AND Case No. 2:19-cv-02621-KJM-DB L.Y., minors by and through their guardian ad 16 litem VANESSA RUIZ; L.Y., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem FRANCISCA 17 URIOSTEGUI, STIPULATION ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO 18 FILE A STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Plaintiff, (LOCAL RULE 260(A)) IN SUPPORT OF 19 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND v. TO CONTINUE OPPOSITION AND REPLY 20 DEADLINES; ORDER YUBA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 21 DEPARTMENT; YUBA COUNTY 22 SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 1-5; CITY OF VACAVILLE; and VACAVILLE POLICE Judge: Kimberly J. Mueller 23 OFFICER DOES 6-10; 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 1 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2022, Defendants CITY OF VACAVILLE, et al. filed a Motion 2 for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (hereinafter the “Motion.”) 3 (Dkt. No. 68-69); 4 WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, Plaintiffs CARMEL GARCIA, et al. filed an opposition to 5 Defendants’ Motion. (Dkt. No. 73); 6 WHEREAS, upon receipt of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion, Defense counsel learned for the 7 first time that a statement of undisputed facts, as required by Local Rule 260(a), was inadvertently not 8 included with the Motion when it was filed on September 30, 2022. However, as set forth in the 9 statement of facts within the Motion, each material fact included a citation to the particular portions of 10 evidence to establish each fact; 11 WHEREAS, on October 13, 2022, counsel for the Parties met and conferred on the telephone 12 regarding the statement of undisputed facts and Plaintiffs’ counsel graciously agreed to stipulate to allow 13 Defendants to file a statement of undisputed facts, which will mirror the facts and evidence set forth in 14 the statement of facts within the Motion that was filed on September 30, 2022; 15 WHEREAS, on October 14, 2022, the Court issued a Minute Order wherein it continued the 16 hearing on the Motion from November 4, 2022 to December 9, 2022 and noted that a further hearing 17 continuance may be warranted because Defendants had not yet filed a statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. 18 No. 76); 19 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Defendants will file their statement of disputed facts 20 pursuant to Local Rule 260(a) on October 14, 2022; 21 WHEREAS, in light of the Court’s continuance of the hearing, the Parties have agreed that 22 Plaintiffs will file a response to said separate statement of facts and amend their opposition accordingly 23 by October 28, 2022; 24 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Defendants will file their reply by November 4, 2022; 25 WHEREAS, neither Party will be prejudiced by the terms of this stipulation; 26 WHEREAS, Defense counsel apologizes to the Court for the inadvertent omission of the 27 statement of undisputed facts with the Motion when it was filed on September 30, 2022. Typically, 28 Defense counsel’s assistant prepares the separate document regarding the statement of undisputed facts 1 based upon the facts and evidence cited in the statement of facts within the Motion. Defense counsel’s 2 current assistant is new to the firm and was unaware of the requirement to file a separate document 3 regarding the statement of undisputed facts and Defense counsel regrettably and inadvertently did not 4 ensure the separate document regarding the statement of undisputed facts was prepared and filed with the 5 Motion on September 30, 2022; 6 WHEREAS, good cause exists to permit Defendants to file the statement of undisputed facts. 7 First, to do so will ensure Defendants’ Motion is in compliance with Local Rule 260(a). Second, it will 8 avoid delay in an order being issued on the merits of Defendants’ Motion. As cited by Plaintiffs in their 9 opposition to the Motion, in the matter of Bohannon-Hingston v. Brachfeld Law Grp., Defendant did not 10 file a separate statement of undisputed facts as required by Local Rule 260(a) and the court denied 11 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted leave to re-file the motion in compliance with 12 the local rules. (Case No. CIV S-11-776 KJM-EFB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120456, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. 13 Oct. 17, 2011).) Therefore in an effort to avoid delay in addressing the merits of Defendants’ Motion, the 14 Parties submit that good cause exists to allow Defendants to file a statement of undisputed facts on 15 October 14, 2022 and to continue the briefing schedule as set forth above. 16 STIPULATION 17 NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants submit this stipulated request to allow 18 Defendants to file a statement of undisputed facts, as required by Local Rule 260(a), on October 14, 2022 19 and for Plaintiffs to file a response and amended opposition to Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts 20 on or before October 28, 2022, and for Defendants to file a reply brief on or before November 4, 2022. 21 So stipulated. 22 23 Dated: October 14, 2022 BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL 24 By: /s/ Sheila D. Crawford Richard W. Osman 25 Sheila D. Crawford Attorney for Defendants CITY OF 26 VACAVILLE, JULIE BAILEY, CHUCK BAILEY, DUSTIN WILLIS, and 27 DAVE SPENCER 28 1 Dated: October 14, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF FULVIO F. CAJINA 2 By: /s/ Fulvio F. Cajina Fulvio F. Cajina 3 Attorney for Plaintiffs CARMEL GARCIA, M.Y. AND L.Y., minors by and through their 4 guardian ad litem VANESSA RUIZ; L.Y., a 5 minor by and through his guardian ad litem FRANCISCA URIOSTEGUI 6 7 ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ATTESTATION 8 I, Richard W. Osman, hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures 9 indicated by a conformed signature (“/s/”) within this E-filed document or have been authorized by 10 counsel to show their signature on this document as /s/. 11 Dated: October 14, 2022 By: /s/ Sheila D. Crawford Sheila D. Crawford 12 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 21 /// 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 3 Good cause appearing, Defendants are ordered to file the statement of undisputed facts, a: 4|| required by Local Rule 260(a) by October 14, 2022; Plaintiffs may file the response to Defendants 5 || statement of undisputed facts and an amended opposition by October 28, 2022; Defendants may file | 6 || reply, if any, by November 4, 2022. The hearing date on the Motion shall be December 9, 2022. 7 SO ORDERED. 8 || DATED: October 25, 2022. 9 10 11 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (LOCAL RULE 260(A STIPPORT OF MOTION FOR STIMMARY TTIDGMENT AND TO CONTINIJE OPPOSTTION AND REPT Y