From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheehan v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Branch
Aug 5, 2015
C14-03156 LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015)

Opinion

          OWEN T. ROONEY, ESQ., EDRINGTON, SCHIRMER & MURPHY, Pleasant Hill, CA, Attorney for Defendants BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT and NOLAN PIANTA.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCUSING NOLAN PIANTA AND MICHAEL STOLZMAN FROM ATTENDING THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

          JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, MEGAN SHEEHAN, by and through her undersigned attorney of record, and defendants, BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT and NOLAN PIANTA and the CITY OF OAKLAND and MICHAEL STOLZMAN, through their undersigned attorney of record, hereby stipulate and request this court's order as follows:

         1. This civil rights action alleges excessive force at Santa Rita Jail on March 17, 2014.

         2. Nolan Pianta is a police officer employed with the BART Police Dept. and a named defendant. Michael Stolzman is a police officer employed with the Oakland Police Dept. and a named defendant.

         3. This case is scheduled for a Settlement Conference with Chief Magistrate Judge Spero on September 24, 2015.

         4. It is requested that Nolan Pianta's attendance at the Settlement Conference be excused. First, Nolan Pianta is scheduled to be on vacation and out of state on September 24, 2015. Secondly, Mr. Pianta is a not decision-maker for settlement purposes. An authorized BART representative with the authority to settle will attend the Settlement Conference.

         5. It is requested that Michael Stolzman's attendance at the Settlement Conference be excused. Mr. Stolzman is a not decision-maker for settlement purposes. An authorized City of Oakland representative with the authority to settle will attend the Settlement Conference.

         6. All counsel have agreed that the appearances of Mr. Pianta and Mr. Stolzman may be excused from the Settlement Conference.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         CERTIFICATION BY OWEN T. ROONEY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE NO.5-1, SECTION (i)(3). RE E-FILING ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE SIGNATORIES

         1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and am an attorney in the law firm of Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy, counsel for Defendants Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Nolan Pianta. The statements herein are made on my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify thereto.

         2. The above e-filed document contains multiple signatures. I declare that concurrence has been obtained from each of the other signatories to file this jointly prepared document with the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1, section (i)(3), I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for subsequent production for the Court if so ordered, or for inspection upon request by a party until one year after final resolution of the action (including appeal, if any).

         I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of California that the foregoing is true and correct on July 28, 2015.


Summaries of

Sheehan v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Branch
Aug 5, 2015
C14-03156 LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Sheehan v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Case Details

Full title:MEGAN SHEEHAN, Plaintiff, v. BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, NOLAN…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Branch

Date published: Aug 5, 2015

Citations

C14-03156 LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015)