Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

GREGOIRE v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 2:13-cv-01857-TLN-DAD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141028b54 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. The Plaintiff David Gregoire, by and through his attorney Gary Gorski, and Defendants, by and through their attorney, John Lavra stipulate as follows: The purpose of this stipulation is to request that the court modify the existing scheduling order by extending the remaining pretrial and trial dates. This case arises as a result of the plaintiff being bitten by a Sacramento County Sheriff's canine, which was und
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

The Plaintiff David Gregoire, by and through his attorney Gary Gorski, and Defendants, by and through their attorney, John Lavra stipulate as follows:

The purpose of this stipulation is to request that the court modify the existing scheduling order by extending the remaining pretrial and trial dates.

This case arises as a result of the plaintiff being bitten by a Sacramento County Sheriff's canine, which was under the control of Defendant Deputy Jenkins. The canine was being used in conjunction with a vehicle pursuit and stop, and an arrest of the individual involved in the pursuit. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was bitten by the Sheriff's canine by mistake. Plaintiff has brought state law claims for personal injury and federal claims for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and Monell claims against the County, alleging unconstitutional policies surrounding canine use by the Sheriff's Department.

Under the current scheduling order, November 20, 2014 is the last day for hearing on Dispositive Motions. Defendant intends to file a motion for summary judgment and had every intention of doing so by October 21, 2014 for a November 20, 2014 hearing date. However, Amanda McDermott is the attorney in Defendant's counsel's office that has been handling this file. Ms. McDermott became unexpectedly unavailable to complete the motion by the filing deadline due to an unanticipated early maternity leave of absence.

Ms. McDermott is pregnant and due at the end of October. It was Ms. McDermott's intention to remain at work until October 24, 2014, finalizing the Motion for Summary Judgment by the October 21, 2014 filing deadline. Ms. McDermott has already begun preparation on the motion. However, she unexpectedly became ill on October 6, 2014 and was unable to work on October 7th or 8th. Defendant's counsel's office anticipated her return upon recovery from her illness. However, on October 9, 2014, Ms McDermott went into labor aid will not be returning to work until mid-January 2015. As a result of her early labor and leave of absence, Defendants' counsel are unable to have another attorney in their office learn the case and file a completed motion for summary judgment by October 21, 2014. As a result, the parties hereby stipulate to continue the last day for hearing dispositive motions by approximately 55 days.

The parties stipulate to modify the scheduling order as follows:

Last day for hiring dispositive motions — current deadline of November 20, 2014. Proposed new deadline: January 15, 2015. All other dates shall remain the same.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, it is ordered that the last day for hearing dispositive motions is January 15, 2015. All other dates shall remain the sane.

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