Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02323/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02323-0/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

04cv2323

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA ANN SANDKNOP,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CALIFORNIA; DEPUTY SHERIFF OF

THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CA.

NAME UNKNOWN; OFFICER SKUBA,

POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF

ESCONDIDO FIRST NAME

UNKNOWN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv2323-L(NLS)

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO DEFENDANT SAN

DIEGO COUNTY’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

(2) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT SAN

DIEGO COUNTY’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Linda Ann Sandknop filed an Ex Parte application seeking an extension of time

to file an opposition to Defendant County of San Diego’s (“County”) summary judgment

motion. The County opposes Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. For the reasons which follow,

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is GRANTED.

Plaintiff has been proceeding pro se for most of the pendency of the instant action, and is

in poor health. On September 11, 2006, the County filed a summary judgment motion, which

was set for a hearing on October 10, 2006. One week before the hearing date, the County filed

Case 3:04-cv-02323-L-NLS Document 83 Filed 11/28/06 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 04cv2323

an amended declaration of Demelza Aquisap in support of its motion. Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition, and twice sought to file a request for an extension of time due to her poor health and

hospitalization. The court rejected both filings because they were not accompanied by a proof of

service. On October 27, 2006, in light of Plaintiff’s unsuccessful filings and the County’s

amended declaration, the Court issued the Order (1) Providing Notice to Plaintiff Regarding

Summary Judgment; and (2) Setting Briefing Schedule. The briefing schedule extended the due

date for Plaintiff’s opposition to November 17, 2006. Shortly before the due date, Plaintiff was

able to secure legal representation with the assistance of the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer

Program. She maintains her new counsel needs time to familiarize herself with the case and

conduct discovery necessary to oppose the County’s pending summary judgment motion. 

The County argues Plaintiff failed to show good cause because an extension of time had

already been granted. The court disagrees.

In the interests of justice and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is GRANTED.

2. Defendant County of San Diego’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling.

3. The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for a new case

management conference to set pre-trial dates.

DATED: November 28, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-02323-L-NLS Document 83 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2