Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03396/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03396-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 (Plaintiff’s Motion to Request a Continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference,

hereafter, “Motion for Continuance,” Docket Item No. 90.)

2

 (Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference at 3, Docket Item No. 93.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Gary H. Kidgell,

Plaintiff,

 v.

County of Santa Clara, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 08-03396 JW 

ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

This case is scheduled for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference on June 21, 2010. On June 11,

2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking a sixty-day continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference

in order to give him additional time to secure counsel.1

 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, but

indicate that they would be amenable to a shorter continuance of not more than twenty days.2 The

Court finds that a sixty-day continuance is unnecessary, especially in light of Plaintiff’s

representation that he has retained counsel who is currently in the process of seeking admission pro

hac vice. (Motion for Continuance at 2.) However, since Plaintiff has not yet completed the process

of securing counsel, the Court finds good cause to provide him with a brief extension of time.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance and orders as follows:

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 95 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(1) On June 28, 2010 at 10 a.m., the parties shall appear for a Preliminary Pretrial

Conference. If Plaintiff has secured counsel by that time, counsel shall appear with

Plaintiff at the Conference.

(2) On or before June 22, 2010, Plaintiff shall submit a Preliminary Pretrial Conference

Statement. Since Defendants have already submitted their Statement, it is not

necessary for them to submit another Statement jointly with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s

Statement shall include, among other things, a proposed trial schedule.

Dated: June 17, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 95 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

David Michael Rollo david.rollo@cco.sccgov.org

Neysa A. Fligor neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org

Rima Harbans Singh rima.singh@cco.sccgov.org

Gary Howard Kidgell

228 Spruce Street

Wichita, KS 67214

Dated: June 17, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 95 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3