From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Carey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 2, 2011
CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00813 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00813 KJM EFB

08-02-2011

GEORGE LEE, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS CAREY, et al., Defendants.

DLA PIPER LLP (US) ALEXANDER M. MEDINA Attorneys for Plaintiff GEORGE LEE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PHILLIP L. ARTHUR Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUFFLEBEAM


ALEXANDER M. MEDINA (SBN 222015)

DANIEL J. CROXALL (SBN 258390)

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GEORGE LEE

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR SHORT

TRIAL CONTINUANCE PENDING

FINALIZATION OF TENTATIVE

SETTLEMENT

Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Plaintiff's counsel has authority to negotiate a settlement of the above-captioned matter, subject to Plaintiff's approval of the settlement amount. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant have engaged in settlement negotiations and on August 2, 2011, reached a settlement in principle that, if finalized, would fully and finally dispose of this action. Plaintiff's counsel believes that Plaintiff will agree to the settlement amount.

2. Because Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, CA, communicating with him is subject to several logistical hurdles making it impossible to communicate with him on short notice. It is thus possible that Plaintiff's counsel will not be able to communicate with Plaintiff about the tentative settlement agreement until Thursday, August 4, 2011 at the earliest.

3. To avoid the unnecessary consumption of time and resources by the attorneys, the Court, staff of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and potential jurors that would occur in making preparations for a trial that likely will not go forward, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant have agreed to a short (e.g., a one- or two-week) continuance of the trial date to allow sufficient time to finalize a settlement without the added pressure of trial preparation. They therefore request that the Court grant this request and reschedule the trial for the soonest available date that is at least one week after the current trial date of August 8, 2011.

4. If Plaintiff formally accepts the settlement offer, Plaintiff's counsel will immediately file a Notice of Settlement pursuant to Local Rule 160.

The parties respectfully request that the Court enter this Stipulation as an Order of the Court.

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

ALEXANDER M. MEDINA

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GEORGE LEE

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP L. ARTHUR

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

STUFFLEBEAM

ORDER

The court having carefully reviewed the parties' stipulation, and also having reviewed the court's availability for a continued trial over the next several weeks, orders as follows: Given the possibility that plaintiffs' counsel will be able to communicate with plaintiff by Thursday, August 4, counsel is directed to provide a further joint status no later than 10 a.m. on Friday, August 5, advising the court if plaintiff's counsel have been able to communicate with plaintiff and if so whether the case has settled. The parties' request to continue the trial date is submitted pending submission of this further status report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Lee v. Carey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 2, 2011
CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00813 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Lee v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE LEE, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS CAREY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 2, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00813 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)