Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04995/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04995-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, 

ADR DEADLINES AND TIME FOR FIRST RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY ALAMEDA DEFENDANTS 

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

Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

The Waterfront Building 

2749 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Telephone: (415) 353-0999 

Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 

Teresa L. Highsmith – State Bar No. 155262 

Office of the City Attorney 

2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 280 

Alameda, California 94501-4477 

Telephone: (510) 747-4750 

Facsimile: (510) 747-4767 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TSOGTBAYAR SANDAGDORJ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY OF ALAMEDA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; OFFICER S. BRENNAN 

#512; OFFICER CRUZ #510; AND DOES 1-

100. Jointly and Severally, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: C-06-4995 TEH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RESCHEDULING INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

ADR DEADLINES AND TIME FOR 

FIRST RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY 

DEFENDANT CITY OF ALAMEDA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

The parties, acting by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate to the following 

rescheduling of the Initial Case Management Conference and ADR deadlines and the time for the 

first responsive pleading by the defendant City of Alameda Police Department. Good cause exists for 

this stipulation in that the defendant City of Alameda Police Department was not served until October 

26, 2006. Defense counsel was first notified of the lawsuit November 3, 2006 and he was in trial 

until November 9, 2006 in the matter of Brown v City of Oakland C03 1141 TEH. The parties need 

time to meet and confer about the pleadings, the proper identification of individual officers that may 

be named as defendants or if presently named whether they should be dismissed at an early time in 

the proceedings. Defense counsel also needs time to review the file and disclose appropriate 

Case 3:06-cv-04995-TEH Document 5 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, 

ADR DEADLINES AND TIME FOR FIRST RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY ALAMEDA DEFENDANTS 

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

documents to plaintiff and plaintiff needs time to do his initial disclosure to the defense. 

New Case Management Conference Date: 1:30pm Monday, January 8, 2007 

 Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, SF 

Defendant’s First Responsive Pleading: On or before December 13, 2006. 

Filing of Joint Case Management Statement: December 13, 2006 

Completion of Initial Disclosures December 13, 2006 

File ADR Certification December 13, 2006 

File Either ADR Stipulation or Notice Need Phone Call December 13, 2006 

So Stipulated: 

Dated: November 16, 2006 By: /s/ 

 Hume Joseph Jung 

Dated: November 17, 2006 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

 By: /s/ 

 Gregory M. Fox 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 ALAMEDA POLICE DEPT. and 

 OFFICERS EMMANUEL CRUZ and 

 S. BRENNAN 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THE STIPULATION IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: November ____ , 2006 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION 

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 

“conformed” signature (/s/) within this E-filed document. 

Dated: November 17, 2006 /s/ 

 Gregory M. Fox

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:06-cv-04995-TEH Document 5 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2