Opinion
Case 1:10-cv-01999-MJS
01-02-2013
GREGORY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MERCED; a municipal corporation; Merced police Officer PINNEGAR (ID#215) individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the CITY OF MERCED; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Defendants.
JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. CSB#69888 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS Airport Corporate Centre Attorneys for Gregory Williams DALE L. ALLEN, JR., SBN 145279 KEVIN P. ALLEN, SBN 252290 LOW, BALL & LYNCH Attorneys for Defendants DAVID E. DRIVON, ESQ. #158369 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID DRIVON
JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. CSB#69888
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Centre
Attorneys for Gregory Williams
DALE L. ALLEN, JR., SBN 145279
KEVIN P. ALLEN, SBN 252290
LOW, BALL & LYNCH
Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID E. DRIVON, ESQ. #158369
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID DRIVON
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS'
REPLY BRIEF AND THE HEARING DATE
Honorable Michael J. Seng
The parties, Plaintiff Gregory Williams, and Defendants City of Merced, Officers Pinnegar, et al., by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate that the time for filing all remaining documents and noticed hearing in this matter be extended by one week, i.e.: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from December 28, 2012 to January 4, 2013; Defendants' Reply Brief from January 4, 2013 to January 11, 2013, and the hearing in this matter from January 11, 2013 to January 18, 2013.
1. This action arises out of an encounter between Plaintiff Gregory Williams and Defendant City of Merced Police Officers, including Defendant Officer Pinnegar, in Plaintiff's home on September 9, 2009, from which Plaintiff suffered injuries and was ultimately arrested.
2. Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights on October 21, 2010.
3. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 14, 2012.
4. According to the Court's scheduling order, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due on December 28, 2012; Defendant's Reply is due on January 4, 2013, and the hearing is noticed for January 11, 2013.
5. Due to the Plaintiff's counsels' heavy caseload, holiday schedule and holiday travel plans, Plaintiff needs additional time in which to prepare Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Because extending time to file Plaintiff's Opposition Brief implicates all other deadlines in this matter, the parties request that all remaining deadlines and the hearing date regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be extended by one week, as follows: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment due on January 4, 2013; Defendants' Reply due on January 11, 2013, and the hearing be held on January 18, 2013.
6. To date, no previous time modifications have been made in this case by stipulation or by Court order.
7. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff and the Defendants, through their respective counsel, that the time to file the remaining briefs in this matter and the scheduled hearing date be extended by one week, as follows: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from December 28, 2012 to January 4, 2013, Defendants' Reply from January 4, 2013 to January 11, 2013, and the scheduled hearing from January 11, 2013, to January 18, 2013.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
By: ______________________
Adanté Pointer, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LOW, BALL & LYNCH
By: ______________________
Kevin P. Allen
Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER
Good cause appearing, it is so Ordered and the January 11, 2013 Hearing is continued to January 18, 2013.
Michael J. Seng
U.S. Magistrate Judge