Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00841/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00841-2/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

Stipulation to (1) Continue Date to Hear County 1 USDC Case No. CV-10-00841 RS 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; (2) Extend County

Defendants’ Time to File Anti-Slapp Motion

Under Cal. CCP Section 425.16(f); [proposed] Order

STEVEN M. WOODSIDE, State Bar No. 58684

County Counsel

ANNE L. KECK, State Bar No. 136315

Deputy County Counsel

County of Sonoma

575 Administration Drive, Room 105A

Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815

Telephone: (707) 565-2421

Facsimile: (707) 565-2624

E-mail: akeck@sonoma-county.org

Attorneys for Defendants the County

of Sonoma, Jerry Allen, Sheriff-Coroner

William Cogbill, Nicholas Honey,

Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Shanahan, Sheriff’s

Deputy Caroline Japp, and County

employees, Betty Johnson, Jo Weber, 

and Robin Smith 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SALLY STEINHART,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, SHERIFF-CORONER

BILL COGBILL and DEPUTY SHERIFFS M.

SHANAHAN and CAROLYN JAAP; HUMAN

SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR JO

WEBER; FAMILY, YOUTH & CHILDREN’S

SERVICES DIVISION DIRECTOR CAROL

BAUER; YOUTH & CHILDREN’S SERVICES

DIVISION DIRECTOR NICHOLAS HONEY;

CHILD WELFARE SERVICES/ PROTECTIVE

SERVICES SOCIAL WORKERS JERRY ALLEN,

BETTY JOHNSON, and ROBIN SMITH,

individually and in their official capacities,

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL

SERVICES; DOES 1-50, and ROES 1-50, and

MOES 1-50, inclusive, jointly and severally, 

Defendants.

/

No. CV-10-00841 RS

STIPULATION TO (1) CONTINUE

DATE TO HEAR COUNTY

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS; (2) EXTEND COUNTY

DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO FILE ANTISLAPP MOTION UNDER CAL. CCP

SECTION 425.16(f); [PROPOSED]

ORDER

Case 3:10-cv-00841-RS Document 17 Filed 08/23/10 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

Stipulation to (1) Continue Date to Hear County 2 USDC Case No. CV-10-00841 RS 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; (2) Extend County

Defendants’ Time to File Anti-Slapp Motion

Under Cal. CCP Section 425.16(f); [proposed] Order

This joint stipulation and request for entry of order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 is

entered into by and between Plaintiff in pro per, Sally Steinhart (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants the

County of Sonoma, Sheriff-Coroner William Cogbill, and County employees Michael Shanahan,

Caroline Jaap, Jo Weber, Nicholas Honey, Jerry Allen, Betty Johnson and Robin Smith (collectively,

“County Defendants”). Defendant the California State Department of Social Services is not a party

to this stipulation. This stipulation and concomitant request for an Order is based upon both Plaintiff

and the County Defendants’ request to continue the hearing date of the County Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, and Motion for More Definite Statement, filed on July 26,

2010, and currently to be heard on September 9, 2010; as well as to provide County Defendants

additional time in which to file an Anti-SLAPP Motion under California Code of Civil Procedure

Section 425.16 to a date after the County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended

Complaint is heard. The terms and provisions of this stipulation and request for order are set forth

below.

RECITALS

A. Plaintiff filed her Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

herein on February 26, 2010. Plaintiff believes that she effectuated service of the Complaint on all

County Defendants identified above on or about May 12, 2010. Plaintiff has not yet effectuated

service on Defendant the State Department of Social Services, nor Defendant and former Sonoma

County employee Carol Bauer (retired).

B. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) herein on

June 21, 2010.

C. County Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and

concurrent Motion for More Definite Statement on July 26, 2010 (hereinafter collectively, “Motion

to Dismiss”). This Motion to Dismiss is currently set to be heard on September 9, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.

The thrust of this Motion to Dismiss is to request dismissal of all claims for relief against County

Defendants. 

Case 3:10-cv-00841-RS Document 17 Filed 08/23/10 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

Stipulation to (1) Continue Date to Hear County 3 USDC Case No. CV-10-00841 RS 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; (2) Extend County

Defendants’ Time to File Anti-Slapp Motion

Under Cal. CCP Section 425.16(f); [proposed] Order

D. If certain issues are not resolved pursuant to the Motion to Dismiss, County

Defendants intend to file an Anti-SLAPP Motion under California Code of Civil Procedure Section

425.16 (see Exhibit A). The Anti-SLAPP Motion would request this Court to strike all state law

claims and related allegations against the County’s Human Services Department employee

defendants on grounds of protected speech activities by governmental entities and their

representatives.

E. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedural Section 426.16(f), Anti-SLAPP

motions should be brought within 60 days of the service of the relevant complaint. However, under

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(f), the Court has the discretion to extend the 60

day filing period to “any later time upon terms it deems proper.” It is reasonable and proper on

grounds of judicial economy to allow the County Defendants additional time in which to file and

serve their Anti-SLAPP Motion to a time after their Motion to Dismiss is heard, as the reasons to

bring the Anti-SLAPP Motion would become moot if this Court issues an order which grants the

County’s Motion to Dismiss, thus dismissing the County’s Human Services Department employee

defendants from the lawsuit.

F. Hence, on August 5, 2010, the County approached Plaintiff with the request to

 stipulate to extend the time to file and serve the Anti-SLAPP motion until after the Court issues its

order resolving the pending Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff indicated she would stipulate to such as

long as the County agreed to continue the hearing date of the Motion to Dismiss for three weeks, as

she is presently in trial on another matter and is in the middle of moving her residence. The County

so agreed.

WHEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request entry of a court order as follows:

STIPULATION

1. The current hearing date for the County Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First

Amended Complaint, and Motion for More Definite Statement (along with the concurrent Request

for Judicial Notice re the Motion to Dismiss and Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

Case 3:10-cv-00841-RS Document 17 Filed 08/23/10 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

Stipulation to (1) Continue Date to Hear County 4 USDC Case No. CV-10-00841 RS 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; (2) Extend County

Defendants’ Time to File Anti-Slapp Motion

Under Cal. CCP Section 425.16(f); [proposed] Order

Documents Attached to Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss), is set for

September 9, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. This date shall be continued to September 30, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.

2. County Defendants shall have until and including December 2, 2010, in which to

file and serve their Anti-SLAPP motion under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16.

3. This stipulation does not prevent or preclude the parties from seeking additional relief

from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or otherwise.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 18, 2010 Stephen M. Woodside, County Counsel

By: /s/ Anne L. Keck 

Anne L. Keck, Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for County Defendants

Dated: August 18, 2010 Sally Steinhart, Plaintiff in pro per

By: /s/ Sally Steinhart 

Sally Steinhart

* * *

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, and with good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the current hearing date for the County Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and Motion for More Definite Statement (along with the

concurrent Request for Judicial Notice re the Motion to Dismiss and Administrative Motion to File

Under Seal Documents Attached to Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss)

shall be continued from September 9, 2010, to September 30, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that County Defendants shall have up to and including December

2, 2010, in which to file and serve their Anti-SLAPP motion under California Code of Civil

Procedure Section 425.16. 

Date: _____________ ___________________________________

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00841-RS Document 17 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 4