Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06598/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06598-0/pdf.json

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

---

-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

26

27

28

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DORIS KING, CHARLES KING, JEREMY 

KING, AND TERRI WALKER, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

FRESNO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

CITY OF FRESNO, and DOES 1 though 

100, Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

NO. CIV-F-04-6598 REC LJO 

STIPULATION FOR EXENSION FOR 

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT [RULE 

12(b)(6)] 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties and their attorneys of 

record that due to an emergency health problem involving Plaintiffs’ attorney, Plaintiffs 

shall have until Friday April 22, 2005, to file an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Rule 12(b)(6)], and the Defendants shall have until 

Thursday, April 28, 2005, to file their reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition. Plaintiffs shall serve 

the opposition on Defendants before the close of business on Friday, April 22, 2005. 

Should the court fail to execute this stipulation: (1) the hearing date for the motion will 

stay scheduled for May 2, 2005, (2) it shall not prejudice the right of defendants to proceed 

STEVEN A. GERINGER

State Bar No.107826 

123 South I Street 

Madera, California 93637 

Telephone (559)661-1973 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 15 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 2
-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

26

27

28

29

with the hearing on May 2, 2005, and (3) it shall not prejudice any claims of the 

Defendants in this matter. 

Date:__________________ /Steven A. Geringer/ 

 STEVEN A. GERINGER 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 

Date:__________________ /Francine M. Kanne/ 

 FRANCINE M. KANNE 

 Attorney for Defendants 

ORDER 

The Court GRANTS the above stipulation, noting, however, that the briefing 

schedule is for the convenience of both the parties and the Court. Should the Court 

determine that it lacks sufficient time to adequately prepare for oral argument due to this 

briefing schedule, the Court will continue the hearing on its own motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Date:__April 21, 2005 /s/ ROBERT E. COYLE 

 JUDGE OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 15 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 2