JOINT STIPULATION TO (1) DISMISS BANE ACT CLAIMS AGAINST PERSONAL-CAPACITY DEFENDANTS, (2) ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (3) RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

This Joint Stipulation to (1) Dismiss Bane Act Claims Against Personal-Capacity Defendants, (2) Establish Briefing Schedule on Motion to Dismiss, and (3) Reschedule Case Management Conference, is submitted by the following parties in this action: Plaintiffs Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz (collectively, "Plaintiffs"); Defendant Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas sued in his personal capacity only ("Sheriff Freitas"); and Defendants the City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Police Department, and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm (collectively, "City Defendants"). Defendants the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, and Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas sued in his official capacity are not parties to this stipulation, as this action is currently stayed as to all claims against them based on their pending appeal. (See e.g., Order entered April 10, 2013, Dkt. No. 92.)

The parties to this Stipulation request the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) approving Plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims made under California's Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, against the individual defendants sued in their personal capacities; (2) setting a briefing and hearing schedule for Sheriff Freitas' motion to dismiss; and (3) rescheduling the case management conference, which is currently set to be held on August 26, 2013, to enable it to be held concurrently with the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The parties submit that good cause supports their requests, as set forth below.

RECITALS

A. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages (the "SAC") in this action on August 7, 2013 (Dkt. No. 105). Plaintiff have re-alleged several claims in their SAC that the Court dismissed without prejudice in its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 104), including but not limited to: (1) a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1 (the "Ban Act") against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity in Count 1; and (2) a claim against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity for due process violations made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Count 4.

B. Upon further consideration and pursuant to a discussion of counsel, Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their Bane Act claim made against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity contained in Count 1 of the SAC, and their Bane Act claim made against Defendant Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm ("Chief Schwedhelm") in his personal capacity contained in Count 2 of the SAC. Upon such dismissal, no Bane Act claims will remain in the SAC against these two individual defendants to the extent sued in their personal capacities; Bane Act claims shall remain in the SAC only as to the entity defendants.

C. Sheriff Freitas has indicated his intent to file a motion to dismiss with respect to the due process claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 made against him in his personal capacity in Count 4. The parties have agreed to a briefing and hearing schedule to address that motion.

D. In addition, to conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, the parties request that the further case management conference, currently scheduled to be held on August 26, 2013, be rescheduled to enable it to be held concurrently with the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The parties also request the ability to appear at the hearing and case management conference via telephone.

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

STIPULATION

1. Plaintiffs hereby dismiss from this action with prejudice their claims made under California Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, against SHeriff Freitas in his personal capacity contained in Count 1 of the SAC, and against Chief Schwedhelm in his personal capacity contained in Count 2 of the SAC.

2. The parties request the Court to extend the time in which Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity may respond to the SAC, and to set the briefing and hearing schedule on his motion to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claim contained in Count 4 of the SAC as follows:

3. In addition, the parties request the Court to reschedule the further case management conference, currently set to be held on August 26, 2013, so that it may be held concurrently with the hearing on the motion to dismiss on October 21, 2013, or such later date as is convenient for the Court.

4. Counsel for the parties also request the ability to appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the case management conference via telephone.

5. 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.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

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

1. The claims made under California's Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, against Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity contained in Count 1 of the SAC, and against Chief Schwedhelm in his personal capacity contained in Count 2 of the SAC, are hereby dismissed from this case with prejudice.

2. The time in which Sheriff Freitas in his personal capacity may respond to the SAC shall be extended, and the briefing and hearing schedule on his motion to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claim contained in Count 4 of the SAC shall be as follows:

3. The further case management conference, currently set to be held on August 26, 2013, shall be rescheduled to October 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., so that it may be held concurrently with the hearing on Sheriff Freitas' motion to dismiss. A joint case management statement shall be filed 7 days prior.

4. Counsel for the parties may appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the case management conference via telephone, pursuant to instructions to be provided by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.