Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Burgess v. County of Mendocino, 16-cv-02414-WHO. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160809754 Visitors: 24
Filed: Aug. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER: (1) PERMITTING THE FILING OF A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (2) RESCHEDULING THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . This Joint Stipulation is submitted by all named parties in this action, including: (1) Plaintiffs Victoria Lee Dalbec, Jason Jay Havranek, Joelle Burgess, and Kara Marzan (collectively, "Plaintiffs"); (2) Defendants the County of Mendocino, Mendocino County Sheriff-Coroner Thomas Allman, and Sh
More

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER: (1) PERMITTING THE FILING OF A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (2) RESCHEDULING THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER

This Joint Stipulation is submitted by all named parties in this action, including: (1) Plaintiffs Victoria Lee Dalbec, Jason Jay Havranek, Joelle Burgess, and Kara Marzan (collectively, "Plaintiffs"); (2) Defendants the County of Mendocino, Mendocino County Sheriff-Coroner Thomas Allman, and Sheriff's Deputy Kaitlyn Olson (collectively, "County Defendants"); and (3) Defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. ("CFMG Defendant").

The parties to this stipulation request the Court to enter an order: (1) allowing Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint; and (2) continuing the Case Management Conference currently scheduled to occur in this matter on August 16, 2016, to September 27, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. The parties submit that good cause supports their requests, as set forth below.

RECITALS

A. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case on May 3, 2016, seeking damages related to the death of their mother, Gloria Burgess, who was a jail inmate held in the custody of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office. Plaintiffs' complaint avers causes of action based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, common law negligence, and California Government Code § 845.6, generally related to the alleged deliberate indifference to the decedent's medical needs and interference with their familial rights.

B. The parties agree that all named defendants have been properly served, either through personal service or agreement of the parties to accept service via email through their counsel of record. CFMG Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on July 1, 2016. County Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, based on the following.

C. Plaintiffs and County Defendants have been engaged in discussions with respect to the viability of certain causes of action alleged in the complaint against certain defendants. Pursuant to such discussions, Plaintiffs have agreed to amend their complaint to dismiss Sheriff Allman as a defendant in the case and to remove other County Defendants from some of the causes of action. In exchange for such amendments, County Defendants have agreed not to file a motion to dismiss on those and other claims in the complaint. Plaintiff has also agreed not to add any additional causes of action or defendants to the first amended complaint without the prior consent of the parties or the Court. The CFMG Defendant has no objection to the filing of a first amended complaint under these terms and conditions.

D. At the present time, the only matters scheduled in this case are an ADR Telephone Conference set for August 15, 2016, and the Initial Case Management Conference set for August 16, 2016.

E. The parties request this Court to continue the August 16th Initial Case Management Conference to September 27, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., or to a date/time thereafter as is convenient for the Court. The bases for this request are twofold. First, rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference will allow time for the filing of the first amended complaint as well as Defendants' answers to that complaint, which will put the case at issue thereby allowing the Court to address scheduling and other case management issues at the conference. Second, counsel for County Defendants has a conflict on the date currently set for the Initial Case Management Conference of August 16th, as her appearance is required in another county.

WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as follows:

STIPULATION

1. The parties request this Court to enter an order allowing Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth above, which shall be filed no later than August 12, 2016.

2. The parties request the Court to enter an order rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference, currently set for August 16, 2016, to September 27, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

3. Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or otherwise.

ORDER

Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are allowed to file a first amended complaint under the terms and conditions set forth in the parties' Stipulation, which shall be filed no later than August 12, 2016.

2. The Initial Case Management Conference, currently set to be held in this case on August 16, 2016, shall be rescheduled to September 27, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall submit a joint case management statement at least one week prior to the Initial Case Management Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer