Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03032/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

LAW OFFICES 

223 RIVER STREET 

SUITE D 

SANTA CRUZ, CA 

95060 

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 1. 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG

Jonathan Che Gettleman, SBN 243560 

Elizabeth Caballero, SBN 240249 

CABALLERO & GETTLEMAN, LAW OFFICE INC. 

223 River Street, Suite D 

Santa Cruz, California 95060 

TELEPHONE: 831-427-2658 

FACSIMILE: 831-515-5228 

EMAIL: jonathangettleman@yahoo.com 

 cglaw2015@gmail.com 

Eric John Nelson, SBN 282020 

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC JOHN NELSON 

223 River Street, Suite D 

Santa Cruz, California 95060 

TELEPHONE: 831-588-4818 

FACSIMILE: 831-515-5185 

EMAIL: enelsonlaw@gmail.com 

 

Diane K. Vaillancourt, SBN 181348 

LAW OFFICE OF DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT 

849 Almar Avenue, Suite C403 

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

TELEPHONE: 831-458-3440 

EMAIL: vaillancourt@cruzio.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

L.S, a minor, by and through her Guardian 

ad Litum, Herbert SMITH, successor in 

interest; W.S, a minor, by and through his 

Guardian ad Litum, Herbert Smith. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; 

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL 

GROUP, INC.; DOES 1-25, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: 

REQUESTING 49-DAY EXTENSION OF 

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES (CIV. 

L.R. 16-2(d))—SECOND REQUEST 

PROPOSED ORDER

MOTION 

Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 16-2(2), Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys Jonathan Che 

Gettleman, Eric John Nelson, Elizabeth Caballero and Diane K. Vaillancourt, hereby move for relief 

Case 5:15-cv-03032-EJD Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 6 Case5:15-cv-03032-PSG Document13 Filed09/28/15 Page1 of 6
LAW OFFICES 

223 RIVER STREET 

SUITE D 

SANTA CRUZ, CA 

95060 

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 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG

2. 

 

from the Case Management Schedule (Doc. 10, Aug. 27, 2015) consisting of a 49-day extension of 

the Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines. 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. Good Cause Exists to Extend the Case Management Schedule 

Good cause exists to extend the Case Management Schedule deadlines: Since Plaintiffs’ 

prior request, lead counsel Jonathan Gettleman has resumed his law practice following a two-month 

trip out of the country and is prepared to litigate. However, an impediment to meeting the amended 

case schedule has emerged such that another extension is needed. Plaintiffs now have pending in a 

California superior court a Petition for Relief from the Tort Claims Act (“TCA”) that was hoped to 

be resolved on June 30, 2015.1 The hearing on that petition has been continued three times for 

reasons outside Plaintiffs’ control. Most recently, it was set for hearing on September 18, 2015. 

However, for personal reasons, the judge was unavailable and the matter was reset for October 9, 

2015. 

Resolution of the state petition is important because, should the state court grant the relief 

Plaintiffs seek, this would likely foreclose a dispute with the County Defendants over Plaintiffs’ 

compliance with the TCA. The state court judge has stated an inclination to grant Plaintiffs’ petition. 

The state court’s grant or denial of the petition will strongly impact the parties’ meet and confer over 

discovery and scheduling matters as well as expectations for ADR proceedings because it will set 

parameters over what is legitimately in dispute in this case. 

II. The Anticipated State Court Ruling Will Further Resolution of TCA Compliance Issue 

Plaintiffs properly filed their Petition for Relief from California’s TCA in state court while 

initiating their Complaint for Damages in federal court. This lawsuit includes causes of action for 

civil rights violations and also causes of action for state torts. The different claims have, obviously, 

different statutes of limitation and different procedural requirements. Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint 

1 Amanda Sloan et al. v. County of Santa Cruz, California, Case No. CISCV 181792, 

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz (filed June 1, 2015).

Case 5:15-cv-03032-EJD Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 6 Case5:15-cv-03032-PSG Document13 Filed09/28/15 Page2 of 6
LAW OFFICES 

223 RIVER STREET 

SUITE D 

SANTA CRUZ, CA 

95060 

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 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG

3. 

 

was filed in this Court on June 30, 2015—within two years of the alleged injury—to ensure no 

possible dispute over statute of limitations for civil rights violations. Setting forth the state claims, 

however, has been complicated by California’s stringent TCA procedures. 

Plaintiffs are of the understanding that they have complied with the TCA process under 

circumstances where (1) the claimants are minors (entitling them to relief from California’s sixmonths deadline for initiating a claim); and (2) the accrual date is several months after the injury 

(May 21, 2014 versus July 17, 2013). A favorable ruling from the state court promises to set the 

matter of TCA compliance to rest. This issue would not need to be litigated in the federal court 

proceeding. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel are of the firm understanding that they were correct to proceed with their 

petition in the state court.2

 They are also of the firm understanding that they were correct to file their 

First Amended Complaint, including their state causes of action, in this federal district court. 

California case law strongly encourages this dual approach. “[W]e perceive no bar to a claimant 

simultaneously seeking relief under section 946.6 [TCA relief] and filing a complaint alleging 

compliance with the claims statute. . . .” Ngo v. County of L.A., 207 Cal. App. 3d 946, 952 (1989). 

“The claimant is therefore not forced to make the agonizing choice between two exclusive 

remedies.” Rason v. Santa Barbara City Hous. Auth., 201 Cal. App. 3d 817 (1988). 

III. The Requested Extension Will Allow Resolution of the State Petition and Facilitate 

Case Management 

Should the state court decide the Petition for Relief in Plaintiffs’ favor, that ruling should end 

any dispute over the question of TCA compliance. By granting plaintiffs’ relief, the state court is 

2

The federal court lacks jurisdiction to address Plaintiffs’ petition for relief from state TCA 

procedural requirements. See Cal. Gov. Code § 946.6(a) (“The proper court for filing the petition 

[for relief] is a superior court that would be a proper court for the trial of an action on the cause of 

action to which the claim relates.”) (emphasis added); see also, Hernandez v. McClanahan, 996 F. 

Supp. 975, 978 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“It is a fundamental tenet of federalism that waivers of sovereign 

immunity must come from the particular governments that will be subject to the resulting liability.”); 

Luers v. Smith, 941 F. Supp. 105, 108 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Not being “a superior court,” a federal 

district court lacks jurisdiction to hear such a petition. It is a matter reserved for the state courts. See 

Hill v. City of Clovis, Case No. 1:11-cv-1391 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2012).

Case 5:15-cv-03032-EJD Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 6 Case5:15-cv-03032-PSG Document13 Filed09/28/15 Page3 of 6
LAW OFFICES 

223 RIVER STREET 

SUITE D 

SANTA CRUZ, CA 

95060 

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 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG

4. 

 

literally excusing plaintiffs’ compliance with the TCA’s six-month filing limitation.3 The entire 

TCA statute of limitations thus becomes a non-issue. The defendant’s ability to demonstrate 

noncompliance with the TCA six-month statute of limitations is meaningless where noncompliance 

with that provision has been already been acknowledged and may well be excused in the Superior 

Court. That process will set the stage for litigation on the merits of Plaintiffs’ state claims in this 

Court. Since no other federal statute of limitations dispute seems likely, the state court’s ruling will 

greatly impact the scope of anticipated discovery. For should that court grant Plaintiffs the relief they 

seek, the ruling will eliminate the need for Defendants to inquire into threshold matters having 

nothing to do with this case’s merits. 

 On the other hand, should the state court reject Plaintiffs’ petition, that rejection will open up 

questions of fact concerning claim accrual and other considerations having to do with TCA 

compliance as opposed to the case’s merit. Thus resolution of Plaintiffs’ state Petition for Relief will 

greatly impact the parties’ relative assessments of the scope of this litigation. It will impact their 

plans for discovery and case management. 

 In addition, resolution of the state Petition will impact the parties’ respective assessments of 

prospects for ADR resolution. Should the state court grant the relief Plaintiffs seek, the chances of 

their prevailing on the state claims will be enhanced because Plaintiffs will have to prove only 

negligence. Either way, giving time to eliminate this one major unknown at the outset will conserve 

the parties’ resources by allowing a better blueprint for the litigation. It will also promote judicial 

economy by facilitating case management. 

IV. Conclusion and Request 

 For these reasons, plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to order a 49-day extension of all dates 

listed in the current Case Management Statement. A 49-day extension would allow the state court to 

resolve Plaintiffs’ pending petition. It would give the parties sufficient opportunity to prepare for and 

3

 It does not affect the federal claims because Plaintiffs filed their Complaint well within two 

years of the injury and so well within the limitations period

Case 5:15-cv-03032-EJD Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 6 Case5:15-cv-03032-PSG Document13 Filed09/28/15 Page4 of 6
LAW OFFICES 

223 RIVER STREET 

SUITE D 

SANTA CRUZ, CA 

95060 

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 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG

5. 

appear at the initial meet and confer following service of the Summons and Complaint and meet the 

other concurrently extended deadlines. The initial meet and confer is currently set to take place on 

October 6, 2015, some days before Plaintiffs plan to serve the Summons and Complaint, given that 

the hearing on Plaintiffs’ petition is now set for October 9, 2015. Obviously, the initial meet and 

confer cannot proceed absent Defendants’ participation. 

This request is made in good faith and is not for purposes of delay. All factual 

representations made herein are supported by the attached Declaration of Jonathan Che Gettleman. 

This motion is unopposed as defendants have yet to be served with the Summons and 

Complaint4

 and so have not made an appearance. 

Dated: September 28, 2015 /s/ Diane K. Vaillancourt

Diane K. Vaillancourt 

LAW OFFICE OF DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT 

Jonathan Che Gettleman 

Elizabeth Caballero 

CABALLERO & GETTLEMAN, INC. 

Eric John Nelson 

LAW OFFICES OF ERIC JOHN NELSON 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 4

 The Complaint in this case was filed June 30, 2015. The deadline for service of the 

Summons and Complaint is 120-days, i.e., October 28, 2015. Plaintiffs now anticipate serving the 

Summons and Complaint in early October upon or soon after the state hearing of October 9, 2015.

Case 5:15-cv-03032-EJD Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 5 of 6 Case5:15-cv-03032-PSG Document13 Filed09/28/15 Page5 of 6
LAW OFFICES 

223 RIVER STREET 

SUITE D 

SANTA CRUZ, CA 

95060 

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 1. 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. 15-cv-03032-PSG

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED: 

The Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines is hereby 

amended as follows: 

AMENDED CASE SCHEDULE – ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRAM

Date Event Governing Rule

6/30/2015 Complaint Filed 

*Last day to: 

• meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early 

settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan 

FRCivP 26(f) & ADR

L.R.3-5

• file ADR Certification signed by Parties and Counsel 

(form available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) 

Civil L.R . 16-8(b) &

ADR L.R. 3-5(b)

11/24/2015 

• file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of 

Need for ADR Phone Conference 

http://www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov

(form available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) 

Civil L.R . 16-8(c) &

ADR L.R. 3-5(b)

12/8/2015 Last day to file Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial 

disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) Report and 

file Case Management Statement per Standing Order re 

Contents of Joint Case Management Statement 

(also available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) 

FRCivP 26(a) (1) Civil

L.R . 16-9

12/15/2015 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

(CMC) at 10:00 AM in: 

Courtroom 5, 4th Floor 

Robert F. Peckham Federal Building 

280 South 1st Street 

San Jose, CA 95113

Civil L.R . 16-10

 

Dated: _____________________ __________________________________________

 THE HONORABLE PAUL SINGH GREWAL 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case5:15-cv-03032-PSG Document13 Filed09/28/15 Page6 of 6

September 29, 2015

Case 5:15-cv-03032-EJD Document 14 Filed 09/29/15 Page 6 of 6