Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05157/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05157-12/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

STIP. RE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:14-cv-05157 MEJ 1

DAVID F. BEACH (SBN: 127135)

SCOTT A. LEWIS (SBN: 149094) 

PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & 

MOSKOWITZ, LLP 

438 1st Street, 4th Floor 

Santa Rosa, California 95401 

Telephone: (707) 525-8800 

Facsimile: (707) 545-8242 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, JACY TATUM, DAVID 

RODRIGUEZ and MATTHEW SNODGRASS 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

CAITLIN SINCLAIRE BLYTHE (CA SBN 265024) 

CBlythe@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RAUL BARAJAS 

ELVA BARAJAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RAUL BARAJAS and 

ELVA BARAJAS, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a municipal 

corporation; and JACY TATUM, DAVID 

RODRIQUEZ and MATTHEW SNODGRASS, 

officers with the City of Rohnert Park Police 

Department, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-05157 MEJ

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SEEKING STAY OF 

PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

DECISION FROM NINTH CIRCUIT 

COURT OF APPEALS REGARDING 

THE PARTIES’ PETITIONS FOR 

APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 

Complaint filed: November 21, 2014 

Case 3:14-cv-05157-SK Document 89 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 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

STIP. RE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:14-cv-05157 MEJ 2

Plaintiffs Raul Barajas and Elva Barajas (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Rohnert 

Park, Jacy Tatum, David Rodriquez and Matthew Snodgrass (“Defendants”), through their 

undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2016, the Court entered the Order Re: Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Sua Sponte Certifying Issues for Appeal (the “Order”); 

WHEREAS, the Order sua sponte certified two issues for interlocutory appeal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b) and ordered the parties to meet and confer and within 30 days of the Order’s 

issuance submit a proposal regarding whether the action should be stayed; 

WHEREAS, the parties filed separate petitions seeking appellate review under § 1292(b) 

of one or both issues certified by the district court; 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agree that a stay of the proceedings 

before this Court pending resolution of the parties’ petitions by the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, either through an order declining to accept certification of both issues or a ruling on the 

appeal of one or both issues, is appropriate and would promote economy of time and effort; 

WHEREAS, the parties shall promptly inform the Court if the Ninth Circuit declines to 

accept certification of one or both certified issues; and 

WHEREAS, Defendants and Plaintiffs propose the following: A stay of the proceedings 

before this Court should be entered pending resolution of the parties’ petitions by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, either through an order declining to accept certification of both issues 

or a ruling on the appeal of one or both issues. 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, subject to the approval of the Court, that a stay 

of the proceedings before this Court should be entered pending resolution of the parties’ petitions 

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, either through an order declining to accept certification of 

both issues or a ruling on the appeal of one or both issues.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:14-cv-05157-SK Document 89 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 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

STIP. RE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:14-cv-05157 MEJ 3

Dated: August 23, 2016 

Dated: August 23, 2016 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

CAITLIN SINCLAIRE BLYTHE 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

By: /s/ Arturo J. González

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorney for Raul Barajas and Elva Barajas 

SCOTT LEWIS 

DAVID F. BEACH 

PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & 

MOSKOWITZ LLP 

By: /s/ Scott Lewis

SCOTT LEWIS 

Attorney for City of Rohnert Park

FILER’S ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) 

I, Arturo J. González, hereby certify that I am the ECF user whose identification and password 

are being used to file the foregoing Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Seeking Stay of 

Proceedings Pending Decision From Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Regarding the Parties’ 

Petitions for Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and that the above-referenced signatory to this 

stipulation has conferred in this filing. 

/s/ Arturo J. González__________

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __________________, 2016 __________________________________ 

Hon. Maria-Elena James 

sf-3687450

August 24, 

Case 3:14-cv-05157-SK Document 89 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 3