Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00113/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00113-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

JAI M. GOHEL, CA SBN 170782 

Attorney at Law 

819 Eddy Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Telephone: (415) 771-6174 

Facsimile: (415) 474-3748 

Email: jaigohel@rocketmail.com

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, CA SBN 11290 

BEN ROSENFELD, CA SBN 203845 

GORDON KAUPP, CA SBN 226141 

Law Offices of Dennis Cunningham 

115 1⁄2 Bartlett Street 

San Francisco, California 94110 

Telephone: (415) 285-8091 

Facsimile: (415) 285-8092 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MARK ANTHONY BAILEY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO VENUE 

--oo0oo-- 

MARK ANTHONY BAILEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

OAKDALE POLICE OFFICER BRIAN 

SCHIMMEL, individually and in his official 

capacity, OAKDALE POLICE OFFICER 

TAYLOR, individually and in his official 

capacity, OAKDALE CHIEF OF POLICE 

GARY HAMPTON, individually and in his 

official capacity, OAKDALE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF OAKDALE, 

and DOES 1-20, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:05-CV-00113 OWW-SMS 

ORDER AFTER HEARING 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00113-OWW -SMS Document 81 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 

This matter came before the Court for hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment on May 7, 2006. Upon hearing of the matter, and after arguments of counsel, IT IS SO 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff shall have until May 22, 2007 to serve responses to Defendant 

Taylor and Shimmel’s First Set of Requests for Admissions. 

2. Discovery shall be re-opened for 90 days to facilitate the adjudication of 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56(f). 

Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in order to facilitate a discovery 

schedule and complete depositions of percipient witnesses and expert 

witnesses in order to specifically address the issues in Defendants’ Motion. 

3. Plaintiff shall file a Supplemental Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment on or before September 17, 2007. Defendants’ 

Supplemental Reply shall be filed on or before October 15, 2007. A further 

hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment shall be held on October 29, 

2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

DATED: 5/15/07 

 

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00113-OWW -SMS Document 81 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2