Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02730/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02730-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

DREW GARDNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., 

Defendants. 

1 Anne L. Keck, State Bar No. 136315 

KECK LAW OFFICES 

2 418 B Street, Suite 206 

Santa Rosa, California 95401 

3 Telephone: (707) 595-4185

Facsimile: (707) 657-7715 

4 Email: akeck@public-law.org

5 Attorneys for Defendants

the COUNTY OF TEHAMA 

6 and former Sheriff’s Deputy 

ED McCULLOUGH 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

11 SECOND STIPULATION TO PROVIDE

COUNTY DEFENDANTS AN

12 EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO THE COMPLAINT; 

13 ORDER

14 

15 

16 This joint stipulation and request for entry of order is entered into by and between Plaintiff 

17 Drew Gardner (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants the County of Tehama, including its administrative 

18 subdivision the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department, and Ed McCullough, formerly a Tehama 

19 County Sheriff’s Deputy (collectively, the “County Defendants”), for the purpose of extending the 

20 time in which the County Defendants may respond to the Complaint filed herein. Specifically, the 

21 parties request the Court to enter an order extending the time in which County Defendants may 

22 respond to the Complaint (and any amended complaint) through and including April 30, 2015, or 30 

23 days after filing and service of the amended complaint, whichever is longer. The parties submit that 

24 good cause supports this stipulation and request for entry of an order, as set out below. 

25 RECITALS

26 A. Plaintiff initially filed the Complaint in this action in the Tehama County Superior 

27 Court on October 17, 2014. This action was removed to this Court through a Notice of Removal 

28 

 1 

Second Stipulation to Provide County Defendants 

Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint, et al. USDC Case No.2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 29 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 4
1 filed by Defendants the California Highway Patrol and CHP Officer Newman (the “CHP 

2 Defendants”) on November 19, 2014. 

3 B. The parties agree that all of the County Defendants were effectively served with the 

4 Summons and Complaint in this matter as of January 22, 2015. Thereafter, the parties entered an 

5 initial stipulation to extend the time for County Defendants to respond to the Complaint through 

6 March 5, 2015, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 144. (Dkt. No. 17.) Under the terms of such stipulation, 

7 the parties agreed that they would seek a Court order for a further extension of time if Plaintiff had 

8 not filed an amended complaint by that date. Pursuant to a stipulation with the CHP Defendants, 

9 Plaintiff has agreed to file an amended complaint within 30 days after the Court’s resolution of 

10 Defendant Miller’s motion to dismiss, which makes Plaintiffs’ amended complaint due on or before 

11 March 16, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff has not yet filed his amended complaint. 

12 C. The County Defendants have informed Plaintiff that they intend to file a motion to 

13 dismiss in response to the Complaint. These parties have been engaged in a meet and confer process 

14 regarding the legal and factual issues relative to such motion, and County Defendants have provided 

15 an outline and analysis of the issues with authorities for Plaintiff to review. However, the parties 

16 have not yet completed their meet and confer process on the issues. 

17 D. Under these circumstances, the parties to this stipulation agree that it would serve the 

18 interests of justice to allow the County Defendants to dispense with their obligation to file a motion 

19 to dismiss in response to the current Complaint on file herein, and instead allow them to respond to 

20 Plaintiff’s anticipated first amended complaint. 

21 E. In addition, counsel for County Defendants, Anne Keck, has filed a Notice of 

22 Unavailability and has notified Plaintiff’s counsel that she will not be available during the period 

23 March 10-27, 2015, and thus will require additional time to review the amended complaint and 

24 complete the meet and confer process prior to preparing and filing the motion to dismiss herein. 

25 Plaintiff is amenable to providing County Defendants with additional time to address these issues 

26 and accommodate Ms. Keck’s schedule. 

27 WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree as follows: 

28 

 2 

Second Stipulation to Provide County Defendants 

Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint, et al. USDC Case No.2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 29 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 4
1 STIPULATION

2 1. The parties request the Court to enter an order providing County Defendants with an 

3 extension of time in which to respond to the initial Complaint and any amended complaint filed 

4 herein through and including April 30, 2015, or 30 days after the filing and service of the amended 

5 complaint, whichever is longer. 

6 2. Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other 

7 matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the 

8 parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or 

9 otherwise. 

10 Respectfully submitted, 

11 Dated: March 5, 2015 KECK LAW OFFICES 

12 By: /s/ Anne L. Keck 

Anne L. Keck 

13 Attorneys for Defendants the County of Tehama 

and former Sheriff’s Deputy Ed McCullough 

14 

15 Dated: March 5, 2015 BERG & ASSOCIATES 

16 By: /s/ Catherine Burns (as authorized on 3/5/15) 

Catherine Burns 

17 Attorneys for Plaintiff Drew Gardner 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 3 

Second Stipulation to Provide County Defendants 

Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint, et al. USDC Case No.2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 29 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 4
1 ORDER

2 Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause 

3 appearing, 

4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that County Defendants shall be provided with an extension of 

5 time in which to respond to the initial Complaint and any amended complaint filed herein through 

6 and including April 30, 2015, or 30 days after the filing and service of the amended complaint, 

7 whichever is longer. 

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

9 Dated: 3/5/2015 /s/ John A. Mendez 

HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 

10 United States District Court Judge 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 4 

Second Stipulation to Provide County Defendants 

Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint, et al. USDC Case No.2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 29 Filed 03/06/15 Page 4 of 4