Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04641-13/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

262

7

28

JOHN L. BURRIS, SBN 69888

ADANTE D. POINTER, SBN 236229

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621 

Telephone: (510) 839-5200

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sean Francis McCloskey, 

Laiala McCloskey and D.M

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General of California

TOM BLAKE

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 51885

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5506

Fax: (415) 703-5480

E-mail: Tom.Blake@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants California Highway Patrol

Officers Mike Courtnier and Jon White

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SEAN FRANCIS McCLOSKEY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs,

v.

M. E. COURTNIER, J. WHITE, ET AL.

Defendants.

Case No.: 05-04641 MMC

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND

STIPULATION FOR ORDER

MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT

SCHEDULE AND SETTING FURTHER

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

[Proposed] ORDER 

Trial Date: April 18, 2011 

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: The Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

Courtroom: 7, 19 Floor th

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action, by and through

their respective counsel of record, and pursuant to all applicable statutes and rules, including but

not limited to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, and 40, as follows:

Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise out of a traffic stop wherein plaintiffs allege that two CHP

1

Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further

Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order (05-04641 MMC)

Case 3:05-cv-04641-MMC Document 68 Filed 01/04/11 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

262

7

28

officers, defendants Courtnier and White (hereinafter collectively “defendants”), violated their

federal and state civil rights by unlawfully using an excessive amount of force against them. 

The parties have participated in two settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge

Larson. 

This matter had been continued in anticipation of the filing of a defendants' summary

judgment motion predicated on a recent Ninth Circuit decision that analyzes extensively the

amount of force used in traffic stops. The defendants believed (and do believe) that that case is

factually and legally on point. Pursuant to an earlier stipulation of the parties, the matter was

continued to allow defendants to bring a dispositive motion based on the then-new Ninth Circuit

opinion. 

As defendants were about to file the summary judgment motion, the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals announced in Brooks v. City of Seattle, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3896202 (9th Cir. Sep 30,

2010) (NO. 08-35526) that the Circuit Court was granting a rehearing en Banc, a possibility that

this Court had explored briefly with counsel at the status conference. The grant of rehearing,

although thought unlikely by many observers, means that the three-judge opinion cannot now be

cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Defendants believe that the en Banc opinion may be dispositive; both sides believe that the

en Banc decision will provide important guidance to the parties as they contemplate settlement

and to the Court if the matter proceeds to summary judgment or trial. Th en Banc hearing was

recently held on December 10, 2010. 

In light of the foregoing, both sides respectfully request that the March 29, 2011 PreTrial Conference and April 11, 2011 Jury Trial dates in this matter be vacated and that the Case

Management Conference currently set for January 14, 2011 be continued for approximately 90

days to allow the Ninth Circuit to issue its en Banc ruling in Brooks. 

2

Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further

Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order (05-04641 MMC)

Case 3:05-cv-04641-MMC Document 68 Filed 01/04/11 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

262

7

28

 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

By: /s/ Adante Pointer

ADANTE D. POINTER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sean Francis 

McCloskey, Laiala McCloskey and D.M.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., 

Attorney General of the State of California

By: /s/ Tom Blake

TOM BLAKE

Attorneys for Defendants California Highway

Patrol Officers Mike Courtnier and Jon White

3

Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further

Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order (05-04641 MMC)

Case 3:05-cv-04641-MMC Document 68 Filed 01/04/11 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

262

7

28

 [Proposed] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the March 29, 2011 Pre-Trial Conference and April 11,

2011 Jury Trial dates in this matter be vacated and that the Case Management Conference

currently set for January 14, 2011 be continued to April , 2011 at 10:30 a.m.

Dated: 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

4

Administrative Motion and Stipulation for Order Modifying Case Management Schedule and Setting Further

Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order (05-04641 MMC)

January 4, 2011 15

Case 3:05-cv-04641-MMC Document 68 Filed 01/04/11 Page 4 of 4