Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01944/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01944-5/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

 – 1 –

STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO COMPLETE ADR 

MARK MARTEL (SBN 147970) 

LAW OFFICES OF MARK MARTEL 

425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 330 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: (650) 470-2650 

Fax: (650) 470-2655 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ESTATE OF FERNANDO CAZARES; MARIA 

CABALLERO, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY; MARK CODY; 

LISANDRO LOPEZ; GREG PITLOCK; and DOES 1 

through 25, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-06-1944 MJJ 

STIPULATED MOTION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CHANGE TIME

TO COMPLETE ADR 

Civil L.R. 6-3; ADR L.R. 6-5 

Case 3:06-cv-01944-MJJ Document 28 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 – 2 –

STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO COMPLETE ADR 

Pursuant to Local ADR Rule 6-5(a), plaintiffs request that the Court grant additional time to 

mediate this matter. 

By stipulation dated September 14, 2006, the parties mutually agreed to mediation as the form of 

ADR under Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties jointly requested that the Court set May 1, 

2007 as the deadline for completion of ADR. On September 25, 2006, the Court accepted the stipulation 

and made it an Order, appointing Randolph W. Hall as the mediator. 

On March 7, 2007, the parties participated in an ADR conference call with the mediator. In 

addition to a more general discussion of the issues involved in the case, the primary topic was the 

difficulty of scheduling. At that time, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was likely to be in trial in the 

Escobedo v. City of Redwood City matter, with which the Court is already familiar. Nevertheless, 

because the Court’s order set May 1, 2007 as the deadline for completion of ADR, the parties tentatively 

set the date of April 18, 2007 for the mediation of this matter. 

At present, plaintiffs’ counsel is still in trial in the Escobedo v. Redwood City matter. Moreover, 

counsel for plaintiffs also has substantial motion practice over the upcoming weeks in a complex multiparty case, Qmect, Inc. v. Judson, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 426631; as well as an 

appeal brief due in a complex civil rights case due on May 7. 

Counsel for defendants is in agreement that mediating under these circumstances would be 

unlikely to be productive at this time. Thus, counsel for the defendants do not oppose changing time 

pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3 and ADR L.R. 6-5, and concur in the request. 

DATED: April 13, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK MARTEL 

By: /s/ Mark Martel 

 MARK MARTEL

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:06-cv-01944-MJJ Document 28 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 – 3 –

STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO COMPLETE ADR 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: April 13, 2007 THOMAS F. CASEY III, COUNTY COUNSEL 

By: /s/ Timothy Fox 

 TIMOTHY FOX, Deputy 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 The parties shall complete the mediation by June 29, 2007. The Court’s September 25, 2006 

order referring the case to mediation remains effective in all other respects. 

DATED: 

Hon. MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge 

4/16/2007

Case 3:06-cv-01944-MJJ Document 28 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3