Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00532/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00532-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL

MATERIALS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH NOONAN, RUTH BLOOM, ALAN

BERSIN, YVONNE CHAN, DONALD G. FISHER,

RUTH E. GREEN, JOE NUNEZ, JOHNATHAN

WILLIAMS, and DAVID LOPEZ, all in their

official capacities as Members of the California State

Board of Education; and TOM ADAMS, in his

official capacity as Director of the Curriculum

Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division

and Executive Director of the Curriculum

Commission (of the California State Department of

Education),

Defendants.

2:06-CV-00532-FCD-KJM

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR A STAY

The Honorable Frank C. Damrell

Trial Date: February 24, 2009

Action Filed: March 14, 2006

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for an Order to stay these

proceedings pending a ruling on their Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative, Request

for Interlocutory Appeal (the “Motion”) (Docket #94), Plaintiff’s opposition (Docket #100) and

Defendants’ Reply (Docket #103) thereto. Because resolution of Defendants’ Motion in their

favor would obviate the need for the parties to embark on their extensive discovery plans, the

court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ ex parte application for a stay of these proceedings

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 104 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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

pending a decision on their Motion. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ ex

parte request to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’

Motion. 

As a result, the Court VACATES all dates presently set in its Pre-trial Scheduling Order,

which dates are described in the Court’s order of March 25, 2008 (Docket # 92) and VACATES

the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel set for hearing before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J.

Mueller for May 7, 2008. In the event Defendants’ Motion is denied, the Court will issue a

further amended scheduling order and plaintiff may file an amended notice of motion resetting

the motion on the magistrate judge’s calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2008 

_______________________________

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 104 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2