Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00266-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

MARK B. CONNELY/S.B.# 125693 

HALL, HIEATT & CONNELY, LLP 

1319 Marsh Street, Second Floor 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 

Telephone: (805) 544-3830 

Facsimile: (805) 544-5329 

connely@hhc-slo.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

Joan Shelley, Michelle Loftis, Sandra Hoyopatubbi 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAN SHELLEY, MICHELLE

LOFTIS, SANDRA

HOYOPATUBBI,

 Plaintiffs,

vs. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; 

SHERIFF STEVE MOORE, IN 

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

SHERIFF OF SAN JOAQUIN 

COUNTY AND STEVE MOORE, 

INDIVIDUALLY; DOES 1 TO 100 

 Defendants.

)

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

)

CASE No. 2:13-cv-00266-MCE-DAD 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT HEARING; ORDER 

THEREON 

Trial: 11/14/16 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Dept.: 7 

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

TO THE COURT: 

 Plaintiffs, JOAN SHELLEY, MICHELLE LOFTIS and SANDRA 

HOYOPATUBBI, and defendant, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, by and through 

their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the hearing on defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, currently scheduled for July 14, 2016, be 

continued to August 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. The parties agree that the deadline for 

both the plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to for Summary Judgment and the 

defendant’s Reply may be continued pursuant to the new hearing date. Good cause 

Case 2:13-cv-00266-MCE-DB Document 74 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 2
 

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

exists to continue the hearing date and deadline for opposition, as counsel for 

plaintiffs was recently in Texas for eight days over a two week period for a 

personal family matter. Additionally, the length of defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgement and accompanied Declarations and exhibits require more 

time and research. Therefore, additional time is needed for plaintiff’s counsel to 

prepare an appropriate opposition to the motion. 

Dated: June 10, 2016 HALL, HIEATT & CONNELY, LLP 

 By: /s/ Mark B. Connely 

 Mark B. Connely, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: June 10, 2016 MAYALL HURLEY, PC 

 By: /s/ Derick E. Konz 

 Derick E. Konz, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

ORDER 

 Good cause appearing, the Court hereby orders that the Motion for Summary 

Judgment hearing date set forth in the Pretrial Conference Order, be continued 

from July 14, 2016 to August 11, 2016. Further, that the date for filing the 

Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to the Opposition to 

Motion for Summary Judgment be continued pursuant to the new hearing date. 

 Further, an Amended Scheduling Order reflecting the new Motion for 

Summary Judgment hearing date shall be forthcoming from the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 14, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-00266-MCE-DB Document 74 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 2