Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00905-7/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

G:\HHerman\15cv905.stipo.Motley contd SC.docx 1 Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

Mildred K. O’Linn (State Bar No. 159055) mko@manningllp.com 

Tony M. Sain (State Bar No. 251626) tms@manningllp.com

MANNING & KASS 

ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 

801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 

Telephone: (213) 624-6900 

Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

CITY OF FRESNO; and OFFICERS 

MATTHEW COUTO (erroneously named 

as “MICHAEL COUTO”); BERNARD 

FINLEY; DERRICK JOHNSON; BRIAN 

LITTLE; JOSEPH SMITH; BRYON 

URTON (erroneously named as “BYRON 

URTON”); AND RYAN ENGUM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION 

PAMELA MOTLEY; ESTATE OF 

CINDY RAYGOZA, through its legal 

representative and administrator, 

YVETTE CALDERA; YVETTE 

CALDERA; VALERIE CALDERA; 

DANNY RICE,, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOSEPH SMITH; BRIAN LITTLE; 

DERRICK JOHNSON; MICHAEL 

COUTO; BERNARD FINLEY; 

BYRON URTON; RYAN ENGUM; 

UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS; 

THE CITY OF FRESNO, 

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

[Hon. Dale A. Drozd, District Judge; 

Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe, M. Judge] 

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES 

AND JOINT REQUEST FOR BRIEF 

CONTINUANCE OF THE 

FURTHER RULE 16 SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Complaint Filed: June 17, 2015 

Trial Date: Not Yet Set 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiffs PAMELA 

MOTLEY; ESTATE OF CINDY RAYGOZA, through its legal representative and 

administrator, YVETTE CALDERA; YVETTE CALDERA; VALERIE CALDERA; 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 7
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

G:\HHerman\15cv905.stipo.Motley contd SC.docx 2 Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

DANNY RICE (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant CITY OF FRESNO (“City”); and 

OFFICERS MATTHEW COUTO (erroneously named as “MICHAEL COUTO”); 

BERNARD FINLEY; DERRICK JOHNSON; BRIAN LITTLE; JOSEPH SMITH; 

BRYON URTON (erroneously named as “BYRON URTON”); AND RYAN ENGUM 

(collectively herein after as the “Defendants”) – the parties – hereby stipulate for the 

purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court grant a brief continuance of the 

currently-calendared date of the further Rule 16 scheduling conference, by about one 

week, in light of an unavoidable calendar conflict for Defendants’ counsel. 

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 

1. The parties met-and-conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) on July 22, 

2015, and filed their Rule 26(f) joint report with a proposed case management schedule 

on August 14, 2015. [Dkt. Doc. 22.] However, partly due to a series of judicial reassignments for this matter, as well as pending dispositive motions, the Court did not 

hold any scheduling conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 until August 2, 2016: 

and then, at that conference, in light of a pending Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, the Court declined to set a case management 

schedule, and the Court instead continued the scheduling conference to November 7, 

2016. [See Dkt. Doc. 6, 6-1, 9, 12, 13, 37, 60, 64.]1

 

2. Then, on November 2, 2016, in light of the fact that the Court had not yet 

issued its ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint (which had been heard but not decided on October 6, 2016, after the Court 

continued the originally-noticed heading date), the Court then continued the Rule 16 

scheduling conference from its previously scheduled November 7, 2016 to a new date 

of December 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. [Dkt. Doc. 66, 70, 71.] 

 

1

 Significantly, during the August 2, 2016 conference, the Court emphasized that discovery has 

been open since the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, even if the absence of a discovery-completion 

deadline removed some incentive to proceed with discovery, and that the parties should actively 

pursue discovery starting August 2016, even though case management deadlines had not yet been set. 

[See Dkt. Doc. 64; see also Dkt. Doc. 52 at 7; Dkt. Doc. 59 at 3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).]

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 7
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

G:\HHerman\15cv905.stipo.Motley contd SC.docx 3 Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

3. Defendants report that their attorneys have the following unavoidable 

calendar conflicts with the current Rule 16 scheduling conference: (1) Mr. Tony M. 

Sain must attend a post-stay status conference in federal court in downtown Los 

Angeles at 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2016, with associated pre-hearing preparation 

and travel needs that Defendants contend is likely to preclude in-person or telephonic 

participation in the Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case; and (2) Ms. Mildred K. 

O’Linn has a mandatory settlement conference in state court set for December 12, 2016 

beginning at 8:30 a.m. in downtown Los Angeles, followed by two depositions set for 

that same date in downtown Los Angeles, that Defendants contend is likely to preclude 

in-person or telephonic participation in the Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case. 

Plaintiffs have no information to confirm or dispute the Defendants’ contentions of this 

paragraph; however, plaintiffs stipulate that there is Good Cause to continue the Rule 

16 scheduling conference as requested, and that plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by such 

a continuance. 

4. This Stipulation is the first request by the parties for any continuance of a 

hearing or Court-set deadline set in this action. 

5. Accordingly, in light of all of the foregoing, and in order to facilitate the 

interests of all parties to this action, by and through their counsel of record in this 

action, the parties hereby Stipulate that Good Cause exists – and the parties respectfully 

request that the Court so Order – to continue the currently pending Rule 16 scheduling 

conference by a brief period of time (e.g., one week). 

STIPULATION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE CONTINUANCE. 

6. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing Good Cause, the parties hereby 

stipulate to and jointly request that the Court issue an Order modifying the operative 

scheduling order(s) in this case, and the related case management dates and deadlines, 

along the following lines and/or in a manner comparable to the following proposed 

amended schedule: 

7. The Rule 16 scheduling conference currently set for Monday, December 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 7
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

G:\HHerman\15cv905.stipo.Motley contd SC.docx 4 Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. shall be continued to a new date/time of: Monday, December 19, 

2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Hon. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 

McAuliffe (Fresno). 

8. At their discretion, counsel for the parties may attend the scheduling 

conference by telephone without further Order of this Court: provided that 

arrangements are made for such telephonic appearance with the Clerk of the Court at 

least two (2) court days prior to the scheduling conference. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 7
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

G:\HHerman\15cv905.stipo.Motley contd SC.docx 5 Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

9. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart and a facsimile or electronic 

signature shall be as valid as an original signature. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: December 2, 2016 MANNING & KASS 

ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 

By: /s/ Tony M. Sain 

 Mildred K. O'Linn, Esq. 

 Tony M. Sain, Esq. 

Attorneys for CITY OF FRESNO; and 

OFFICERS MATTHEW COUTO 

(erroneously named as “MICHAEL 

COUTO”); BERNARD FINLEY; 

DERRICK JOHNSON; BRIAN LITTLE; 

JOSEPH SMITH; BRYON URTON 

(erroneously named as “BYRON 

URTON”); AND RYAN ENGUM 

DATED: December 2, 2016 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE 

By: /s/ Robert Fuentes 

 Kevin G. Little, Esq. 

 Robert Fuentes, Esq. 

 Michelle Tostenrude, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

PAMELA MOTLEY; ESTATE OF 

CINDY RAYGOZA, through its legal 

representative and administrator, YVETTE 

CALDERA; YVETTE CALDERA; 

VALERIE CALDERA; DANNY RICE 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 7
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, FRESNO DIVISION 

PAMELA MOTLEY; ESTATE OF 

CINDY RAYGOZA, through its legal 

representative and administrator, 

YVETTE CALDERA; YVETTE 

CALDERA; VALERIE CALDERA; 

DANNY RICE,, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOSEPH SMITH; BRIAN LITTLE; 

DERRICK JOHNSON; MICHAEL 

COUTO; BERNARD FINLEY; 

BYRON URTON; RYAN ENGUM; 

UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS; 

THE CITY OF FRESNO, 

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM

[Hon. Dale A. Drozd, District Judge; 

Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe, M. Judge] 

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

CONTINUANCE OF THE 

FURTHER RULE 16 SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Complaint Filed: June 17, 2015 

Trial Date: Not Yet Set 

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, and pursuant to the 

Court’s inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court’s 

authority under all applicable statutes and rules – including Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, and 

40, as well as all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. 

Cal. Local Rules – after due consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and 

records in this action; and upon such other evidence or argument as was presented to 

the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in furtherance of the interests of justice,

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 6 of 7
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

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Court hereby Orders that the Rule 16 scheduling conference currently 

set for Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. is hereby continued to a new date/time 

of: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Hon. 

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe (Fresno). 

2. The Court further Orders that, at their discretion, counsel for the parties 

may attend the aforementioned scheduling conference by telephone without further 

Order of this Court: provided that counsel make arrangements for such telephonic 

appearance with the clerk/courtroom deputy of the Court at least two (2) court days 

prior to such scheduling conference. 

3. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as affecting, vacating, modifying, 

or rescinding the Court's Protective Order re Confidential Documents [Dkt. Doc. 23]. 

4. Parties appearing telephonically may do so with each party using the 

following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in number 1-877-411-9748; passcode 

3190866.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 5, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 12/05/16 Page 7 of 7