Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02270/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02270-15/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

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JUDGMENT

Ewing v. State of California, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-02270-WBS-GGH

Terry Gross (103878)

Adam C. Belsky (147800)

Monique Alonso (127078)

GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 544-0200

Facsimile: (415) 544-0201

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

HEATHER MARIE EWING, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER MARIE EWING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. 

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 ) 

Case No. 2:05-CV-02270-WBS-GGH

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO FRCP 54(b) AS TO FEWER

THAN ALL CLAIMS AND PARTIES FOR

PURPOSES OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

WHEREAS, on November 16, 2007, defendants District Attorney John D. Phillips (“Phillips”)

and Deputy District Attorney Lester Fleming (“Fleming”) (collectively, the “DA Defendants”) filed

a motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication;

WHEREAS, on November 16, 2007, defendants John J. Reyes, William J. Hutto, Steven

McCarthy (collectively, the “Officer Defendants”) and the City of Stockton (all collectively, the “City

Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication; 

WHEREAS, in a Memorandum and Order re: Motions for Summary Judgment, dated

February 7, 2008, the Court granted the DA Defendants’ motion on all claims against the DA

Defendants, and granted the City Defendants’ motion as to most, but not all claims against the City

Defendants; and 

WHEREAS, there is no just reason for delay of entry of final judgment as to those claims on

which the Court has granted summary judgment or summary adjudication,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties to the above-referenced

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 94 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JUDGMENT

Ewing v. State of California, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-02270-WBS-GGH

action, by and through their respective counsel of record, as follows:

(1) As to the DA Defendants, that final judgment be entered in their favor as to all causes

of action brought against them. 

(2) As to the Officer Defendants, that final judgment be entered on Plaintiffs’ claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from:

(A) procurement of the search warrant, except as it relates to that part of the search

and seizure conducted pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 7 of the search warrant;

(B) the execution of the search warrant;

(D) the arrest of Heather Ewing on gun, drug, and murder charges; 

(E) the arrest of Mark Ewing on murder charges; and

(F) the continued detention of Mark and Heather Ewing.

(3) As to the Officer Defendants, that final judgment be entered on Plaintiffs’ state law

claim for negligence.

(4) As to defendant City of Stockton, that final judgment be entered on all Plaintiffs’

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(5) As to defendant City of Stockton, that final judgment be entered as to Plaintiffs’ state

law claim for negligence only insofar as it relates to the actions of the Officer Defendants.

(6) As to defendant City of Stockton, that final judgment be entered as to Plaintiffs’ state

law claim for negligent supervision.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 94 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JUDGMENT

Ewing v. State of California, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-02270-WBS-GGH

THE PARTIES FURTHER STIPULATE to a stay in the district court of the remaining claims

in the action pending disposition of Plaintiffs’ appeal of the above judgements.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March 6, 2008

Terry Gross (103878)

Adam C. Belsky (147800)

Monique Alonso (127078)

GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 544-0200

Facsimile: (415) 544-0201

By:__/s/ Monique Alonso ____________ Monique Alonso

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS 

Dated: March 6, 2008

Shelley L. Green (161521)

City Attorney’s Office

425 N. El Dorado Street, Second Floor

Stockton, California 95202

Telephone: (209) 937-8333

By:__/s/ Shelley L. Green______________ Shelley L. Green

Attorneys for CITY DEFENDANTS

Dated: March 6, 2008

Jason R. Morrish (192686)

Office of the County Counsel

County of San Joaquin

Courthouse - Room 711

222 East Weber Avenue

Stockton, California 95202

Telephone: (209) 468-2980

By:_/s/ Jason R. Morrish_______________ Jason R. Morrish

Attorneys for DA DEFENDANTS

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 94 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JUDGMENT

Ewing v. State of California, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-02270-WBS-GGH

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, good cause appearing, and there being no just cause

for delay, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) As to the DA Defendants, that final judgment be entered in their favor as to all causes

of action brought against them. 

(2) As to the Officer Defendants, that final judgment be entered on Plaintiffs’ claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from:

(A) procurement of the search warrant, except as it relates to that part of the search

and seizure conducted pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 7 of the search warrant;

(B) the execution of the search warrant;

(D) the arrest of Heather Ewing on gun, drug, and murder charges; 

(E) the arrest of Mark Ewing on murder charges; and

(F) the continued detention of Mark and Heather Ewing.

(3) As to the Officer Defendants, that final judgment be entered on Plaintiffs’ state law

claim for negligence.

(4) As to defendant City of Stockton, that final judgment be entered on all Plaintiffs’

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(5) As to defendant City of Stockton, that final judgment be entered as to Plaintiffs’ state

law claim for negligence only insofar as it relates to the actions of the Officer Defendants.

(6) As to defendant City of Stockton, that final judgment be entered as to Plaintiffs’ state

law claim for negligence supervision.

Dated: March 7, 2008

Case 2:05-cv-02270-WBS -GGH Document 94 Filed 03/10/08 Page 4 of 4