Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Prieto v. Contra Costa County, C17-02663 JST. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171101b99 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs Rudis Lopez Prieto, Obdulia Romero Preciado, Gonzalo Preciado, J.P. a minor and an individual, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Raul Alvorado and Defendant Contra Costa County, by and through their attorneys, to the following: The parties stipulate to a continuance of the Case Management Conference, cur
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs Rudis Lopez Prieto, Obdulia Romero Preciado, Gonzalo Preciado, J.P. a minor and an individual, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Raul Alvorado and Defendant Contra Costa County, by and through their attorneys, to the following:

The parties stipulate to a continuance of the Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for November 8, 2017, for 60 to 90 days to a date convenient to the Court's calendar. The stipulation is based on the following:

In August 2017, defendant Contra Costa County filed a motion to dismiss the Monell claim against it (which is the only claim brought against the County in the complaint). That motion was granted with leave to amend on October 12, 2017. Plaintiff has until November 2, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Until an amended complaint is filed (if one is filed), it is unknown whether the County will remain a defendant in the case. If an amended complaint is filed and names the County as a defendant, the County may file another motion to dismiss which will not be heard for another 40-60 days.

The individual defendants have not yet been served. Although the parties anticipate that they will be served in the next 15 days, the deadline for those defendants to respond to the complaint will come after the date currently set for the Case Management Conference.

Based on the foregoing, it is difficult for the parties to meet and confer and prepare a Joint CMC statement because (1) there is no operative complaint currently on file, (2) the case is not at issue, (3) and it is not known what defendants will be in the case at the time of the CMC.

In light of the current procedural posture, the parties believe good cause exists to continue the CMC for 60 to 90 days to a date convenient to the Court's calendar.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

There is good cause to continue the initial Case Management Conference and related dates. Case Management Conference is continued to February 7, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. before the Honorable JON S. TIGAR. The Joint Case Management Conference Statement is due January 31, 2018. All associated dates, including the date for the parties to exchange initial disclosures, are likewise continued.

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