Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03658/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03658-5/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

Stipulation And Order Regarding Continuance Of Trial - CV 04-03658 HRL

MICHAEL C. SERVERIAN (SBN 133203)

JON A. HEABERLIN (SBN 199810)

RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE,

 SERVERIAN & STOCK

96 No. Third Street, Suite 500

San Jose, California 95112

(408) 293-0463

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF SAN BENITO and SHERIFF

CURTIS HILL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CASAREZ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN BENITO AND

SHERIFF CURTIS HILL,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C04-03658 HRL

3 Click here to copy title to footer

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING

CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL 

Current Trial Date: October 11, 2005

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD,

TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. This case involves claims by a right-foot amputee, Plaintiff PAUL CASAREZ,

related to his incarceration at the San Benito County Jail at various brief times in 2002 and

2003. Trial is currently set in this matter for October 11, 2005. This is the first trial-setting. 

The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for October 4, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. The parties

mediated, unsuccessfully, on May 31, 2005 with Fred D. Butler, Esq.

2. Plaintiff’s initial Complaint was filed August 27, 2004, and contained three

causes of action: 1) Eighth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983, 2) Violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, and 3) Violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The

First and Third Claims sought compensatory damages, and the Second Claim sought

injunctive relief. On August 2, 2005, Defendants moved for summary judgment as to the First

and Third Claims.

Case 5:04-cv-03658-HRL Document 29 Filed 09/20/05 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

Stipulation And Order Regarding Continuance Of Trial - CV 04-03658 HRL

3. On August 23, 2005, the parties submitted for court approval a stipulation that the

First and Third Claims be dismissed, and that Plaintiff be permitted to file an attached FirstAmended Complaint which (a) realleged the previously denominated Second Claim for

Injunctive relief under the ADA, and added new allegations also seeking compensatory

damages thereunder, and (b) alleged a new state law claim for dangerous condition of public

property (Government Code §835, et. seq.). The Court signed the Stipulation and Order on

August 24, 2005. The First-Amended Complaint was filed and Defendants answered it on

September 1, 2005.

4. Following an ensuing informal exchange of information and documents relating to

the new allegations, both sides now agree that it would be fair and appropriate, as well as

conducive to judicial economy, to continue the trial date from October 11, 2005 to

approximately February 2006, in order to permit the parties to complete their limited and

focused discovery on the new allegations, and to give Defendants the opportunity to test the

new allegations through a further motion for summary judgment filed within the next sixty days. 

In particular, there are or may be issues as to whether Plaintiff can meet the deliberate

indifference standard for the award of damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

(Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001), and as to whether Plaintiff

can show that Sheriff Hill had the requisite actual or constructive notice of the condition which

Plaintiff alleges to be dangerous. (Government Code §§840.2, 840.4). 

5. A short continuance of the trial date will have the important addition benefit of

giving the parties a further window in which to seek settlement of this matter before incurring

the considerable expense of pretrial preparation and expert discovery which will otherwise be

imminent, and which, if incurred, would impede the prospects of settlement. It should be

noted that the parties have a settlement conference with Magistrate Seeborg calendared for

September 27, 2005, by which time significant expenses will have been incurred for trial

preparation and expert depositions if the trial date is not continued.

Case 5:04-cv-03658-HRL Document 29 Filed 09/20/05 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

Stipulation And Order Regarding Continuance Of Trial - CV 04-03658 HRL

6. Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate and request that the trial and pretrial

conference dates be continued until approximately February 2006, or to a time convenient to

the Court.

Dated: September 16, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ADAMS

By: /s/ Michael E. Adams

MICHAEL E. ADAMS

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: September 16, 2005 RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE,

SERVERIAN & STOCK

By: /s/ Jon A. Heaberlin

JON A. HEABERLIN 

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Trial in this matter shall be continued until __________________. 

2. The pretrial conference shall be continued to _____________________.

3. The last hearing date for dispositive motions is ________________________.

4. The parties shall meet, confer, and stipulate amongst themselves on other issues and

deadlines not ordered here, such as those relating to discovery and expert disclosure. 

DATED: _________________ _____________________________________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOWARD R. LLOYD

Case 5:04-cv-03658-HRL Document 29 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 3