Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01632-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

ROBERT D. PONCE (State Bar No.: 108069)

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. PONCE

787 Munras Avenue, Suite 200

Monterey, CA 93940

Telephone: (831) 649-0515

Facsimile: (831) 649-3397

E-Mail: rponce@redshift.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

MARTHA ARMSTRONG and KERED ARMSTRONG, 

a Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, 

MARTHA ARMSTRONG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

MARTHA ARMSTRONG, ) CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-01632-LJO-SKO

KERED ARMSTRONG, a Minor, by and )

through his Guardian ad Litem, )

MARTHA ARMSTRONG, )

) STIPULATION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, ) FOR CONTINUANCE OF DATES SET

) FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING

v. ) ORDER

)

MERCED COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

The parties to this action, plaintiff MARTHA ARMSTRONG and KERED

ARMSTRONG, a Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Martha Armstrong, and

defendants CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., MERCED COUNTY,

SHERIFF MARK PAZIN, COMMANDER JAMES BUTTREY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

J. COLLINS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER B. SHAMBAUGH, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

RIOS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ABRAMS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SARGENSON,

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT RISTINE (incorrectly named herein as Correctional Sergeant

“Resini”), and defendant ROXANNE LONCTOT, R.N., hereby agree and stipulate to the

following: 

1. That the pre-trial and trial dates set forth in the Scheduling Order of April 9, 2012

be continued for a period of six months. Said dates consist of non-expert and expert discovery

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF DATES SET FORTH IN SCHEDULING ORDER

Armstrong v. County of Merced, et al. - Case No.: 1:11-CV-01632-LJO-SKO

Case 1:11-cv-01632-SKO Document 39 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 4
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

deadlines, non-dispositive motion filing deadline, dispositive motion filing deadline, settlement

conference, pre-trial conference and trial. 

The basis for the Stipulation and Joint Request are as follows:

 1. The two heirs of decedent Derek Armstrong, Sr., who are Derek Armstrong, Jr.

and Roshawanda Collins, (named herein as nominal defendants) remain unserved. Defendants

in this action wish to avoid the potential of having to be deposed twice. This potential exists

should these defendants appear in this action after being deposed and be represented by different

plaintiff’s counsel, who may wish to re-depose said defendants. 

Currently, the widow of Derek Armstrong, Sr., Martha Armstrong and Kered Armstrong,

son of Derek Armstrong, Sr. are plaintiffs in this action. Under Probate Code §377.60, Derek

Armstrong, Jr. and Roshawanda Collins (son and daughter) are entitled to participate in this

litigation. Both have not appeared in this lawsuit and, as noted, have been named as “nominal

defendants.”

2. This request for the continuance of said dates is to allow for additional time to

serve Roshawanda Collins, who has still not been located, although a tentative, but unconfirmed

address corresponding to a Roshawanda Collins has been found. Derek Armstrong, Jr. has been

located and is currently being served with the Summons and Complaint pursuant to CCP

§415.40. 

The parties have otherwise proceeded, diligently, with case preparation.

1. The parties to this action have been diligent in conducting discovery in the

absence of the depositions of defendants. Said discovery has included the exchange of initial

disclosures. Plaintiffs have produced extensive medical records, personal records, photographs

and other documentation. Defendants Merced County, et al., have produced incident reports and 

policies. 

2. Plaintiff has responded to written discovery requests consisting of interrogatories

and further requests for production of documents. The depositions of plaintiffs Martha

Armstrong and Kered Armstrong have been taken. The parties have obtained and consulted with

experts. Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of three defendants and intend to take the depositions

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF DATES SET FORTH IN SCHEDULING ORDER

Armstrong v. County of Merced, et al. - Case No.: 1:11-CV-01632-LJO-SKO

- 2 -

Case 1:11-cv-01632-SKO Document 39 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 4
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

of an additional four to six others. 

3. Defendants have requested plaintiff not proceed with the depositions so as to

allow further attempts to locate and serve the remaining heirs. 

Reasonable, diligent efforts have been performed by plaintiffs’ counsel to locate and

serve the remaining non-appearing defendants. 

1. Accompanying this Stipulation is a declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel, detailing the

 efforts plaintiffs’ counsel has undertaken to locate and serve Derek Armstrong, Jr. and

Roshawanda Collins. Plaintiffs’ counsel submits that these efforts have been diligent and

reasonable. One nominal defendant, as noted, has been located and is being served under CCP

§415.40. Said heir resides in the State of Washington. The remaining heir is believed to be

residing in Springfield, Missouri. An effort is underway to contact this individual to determine

whether or not she is the surviving daughter of decedent Derek Armstrong, Sr.

2. A continuance of six months would allow for service by publication to be

completed (provided the court grants the order allowing service by publication) and for discovery

to be conducted with the additional heirs participating. Should Derek Armstrong, Jr. Decline

participation or default on the complaint, a request for entry of default will be filed. Likewise,

should Ms. Collins be served and fail to appear, a request for entry of default will be filed. 

The parties hereby propose the continued dates as follows:

Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff June 14, 2013

Expert Discovery Cutoff September 23, 2013

Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness Reports Due July 15, 2013

Defendants’ Expert Witness Reports Due July 31, 2013

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline October 3. 2013

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline November 8, 2013

Settlement Conference January 9, 2014

Pre-Trial Conference January 30, 2014

Jury Trial March 10, 2014

DATED: December 18, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. PONCE

By: /S/ 

 ROBERT D. PONCE

Attorney for Plaintiffs

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF DATES SET FORTH IN SCHEDULING ORDER

Armstrong v. County of Merced, et al. - Case No.: 1:11-CV-01632-LJO-SKO

- 3 -

Case 1:11-cv-01632-SKO Document 39 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 4
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

DATED: December 14, 2012 TRIMBLE, SHERINIAN & VARANINI

By: /S/ 

 JEROME M. VARANINI

Attorney for Defendants Merced County, et al.

DATED: December 17, 2012 BERTLING AND CLAUSEN

By: /S/ 

STEVE SHLENS

Attorney for Defendant Roxanne Lonctot, R.N.

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation entered into by and between counsel and for good cause

shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order of April 9,

2012, be continued for a period of six (6) months as follows: 

Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff June 14, 2013

Expert Discovery Cutoff September 23, 2013

Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness Reports Due July 15, 2013

Defendants’ Expert Witness Reports Due July 31, 2013

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline October 3, 2013

Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing Deadline November 6, 2013

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline November 8, 2013

Dispositive Motion Hearing Deadline December 19, 2013

Settlement Conference January 9, 2014

Pre-Trial Conference January 30, 2014

Jury Trial March 11, 2014

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF DATES SET FORTH IN SCHEDULING ORDER

Armstrong v. County of Merced, et al. - Case No.: 1:11-CV-01632-LJO-SKO

- 4 -

Case 1:11-cv-01632-SKO Document 39 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 4