Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY LUM, etc., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

NO. 2:10-CV-01807-LKK-DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE 

[F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4)] 

[No hearing required] 

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar #125127)

JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar # 238105) 

ZOEY P. MERRILL (State Bar #268331) 

THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

The Kress Building 

20 North Sutter Street, Fourth Floor 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 943-2004 

Facsimile: (209) 943-0905 

MATTHEW P. DACEY (State Bar #196943) 

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL OF SAN JOAQUIN 

Deputy County Counsel 

44 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 679 

Stockton, California 95202 

Telephone: (209) 468-2980 

Attorneys for All Defendants

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/30/12 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 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

This stipulation and proposed order is entered into between all Plaintiffs 

and all Defendants. 

RECITALS 

A. On September 29, 2010, the Court issued its Scheduling Order. 

(Doc. No. 19). 

B. The Scheduling Order scheduled the pretrial conference for 

May 29, 2012, and the trial to start on August 28, 2012. Pursuant to Rule 281 of the 

Local Rules and the Scheduling Order, the parties’ pretrial statements are due on 

May 15 and 22, 2012. 

C. By order issued on March 23, 2012, the Court granted in part and 

denied in part portions of Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 107). The 

Court also ordered further briefing on certain issues contained in the summary judgment 

motion, which briefing the parties filed, and the Court still has under submission those 

portions of the summary judgment motion. 

D. On April 20, 2012, Defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal 

of the portions of the Court’s order denying Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 

E. Defendants believe the filing of the notice of interlocutory appeal 

stays the lawsuit and they intend to file a motion confirming the stay, which they intend 

to calendar for hearing on June 4, 2012. 

F. Lead trial counsel for Defendants, Dana A. Suntag, is having 

nonelective, required surgery at UCSF in San Francisco on May 3, 2012, for which he 

will be hospitalized for one or two nights, and he has been told that he will not be able to 

return to work until approximately May 15, 2012. This will limit his ability to work on 

Defendants’ pretrial statement and the parties’ joint pretrial statement, due on May 22, 

2012. 

G. For the above reasons, the parties respectfully request the Court to 

reschedule the pretrial conference to June 25, 2012 (or such other available date to the 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/30/12 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 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

Court around June 25, 2012). Rescheduling the pretrial conference in this manner will 

conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, because without a rescheduling of 

the pretrial conference the parties would have to prepare and file pretrial statements 

and the parties and the Court would conduct the May 29, 2012, pretrial conference 

when the Court may shortly thereafter stay the case pending the appeal. Moreover, 

without a rescheduling of the pretrial conference, Mr. Suntag will have only a limited 

ability to be involved in the preparation of pretrial statements. Therefore, the parties 

believe that good cause, as required by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Local Rules, exists for the 

rescheduling of the pretrial conference. 

H. Since the trial date is August 28, 2012, the parties do not believe 

the scheduling change they request by this stipulation requires any change to the trial 

date and the parties do not request the Court to change that date. 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/30/12 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 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

26

27

28

STIPULATION 

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, through their counsel 

of record, that the pretrial conference be rescheduled to June 25, 2012, or such other 

date around June 25, 2012, that is available to the Court. 

Dated: April 26, 2012 THE SUNTAG LAW FIRM 

 A Professional Corporation 

 By: __/s/ Dana A. Suntag____________ DANA A. SUNTAG 

Attorneys for All Defendants 

Dated: April 26, 2012 WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG LLP 

By: __/s/ Peter J. Koenig____________

PETER J. KOENIG 

Attorneys for All Plaintiffs 

O R D E R 

It is so ordered. 

The pretrial conference is rescheduled to June 25, 2012, at 1:30 p .m. 

Dated: April 30, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/30/12 Page 4 of 4