Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745-0/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Page 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

LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP

Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189

Kelley S. Kern, CSB No.: 221265

3620 American River Drive, Suite 230

Sacramento, CA 95864

Phone: (916) 974-8500

Emails:longyear@longyearlaw.com

kern@longyearlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants City of Arvin and 

Officers Ornelas and Pantoja 

Greg W. Garrotto, SBN: 89542

LAW OFFICES OF GREG W. GARROTTO

1875 Century Park East, Ste. 2230

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Phone: (310) 229-9200

Email: jjggarrotto@msn.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, Manuel Palomares

Margo A. Raison, Kern County Counsel

Andre C. Hamilton, Deputy (SBN: 299877)

Office of the County Counsel, County of Kern

1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Phone: (661) 868-3815

Email: ahamilton@kerncounty.com

Attorney for County of Kern

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL PALOMARES, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

CITY OF ARVIN, a public entity; 

OFFICER ALDO ORNELAS, a public 

employee; OFFICER ARMANDO 

PANTOJA, a public employee; COUNTY 

OF KERN, a public employee; and DOES 

1-10

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:21-CV-01745-JLT-BAK (SKO)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(Doc. 10)

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 11 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Page 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

Plaintiff Manuel Palomares and Defendants City of Arvin, Officers Aldo Ornelas and 

Officer Armando Pantoja, and County of Kern hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that 

the Court reschedule the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, currently scheduled for March 8, 

2022 at 8:30am. Defendants City of Arvin and Officers Ornelas and Pantoja’s extended deadline 

to return the Waivers of Service of Summons is February 23, 2023. The deadline for their

response to the Complaint will be determined by the date of service of the Waivers, on or about 

March 25, 2023. The parties request that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be rescheduled 

to no sooner than thirty days from the filing of Defendants’ responsive pleading. The reasons for 

the requested rescheduling are set forth in the attached declaration. 

Dated: February 17, 2022 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP

By: /s/ Kelley S. Kern_________ 

VAN LONGYEAR

KELLEY S. KERN

Attorneys for Defendants

City of Arvin and 

Officers Ornelas and Pantoja

Dated: February 17, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF GREG W. GARROTTO

By:____/s/ Greg W. Garrotto__________________

GREG W. GARROTTO

Attorney for Plaintiff

Manuel Palomares

Dated: February 17, 2022 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL’S OFFICE

By:_______/s/ Andrew C. Hamilton_____________

ANDREW C. HAMILTON

Attorney for County of Kern

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 11 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Page 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

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request to continue the Scheduling 

Conference (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. The Scheduling Conference, currently set for March 8, 2022,

is CONTINUED to July 14, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file their joint scheduling report 

and worksheet by no later than seven days prior to the conference.1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court notes that the parties’ stipulation appears to contain a scrivener’s error, indicating that the deadlines 

relating to the Waivers of Service of Summons are in 2023 (see Doc. 10 at 2), rather than 2022, which is what the 

Court assumes the parties intended to write.

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 11 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 3