Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1 

STIPULATION RE: APPLICABILITY OF TITLE VI etc. Doe, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al. 

Case No. 2:21-CV-01438-MCE-CKD 

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

Verónica Meléndez (SBN 294106) 

Ezra Kautz (SBN 330352) 

Chelsea Lalancette (SBN 330207) 

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION 

2210 K Street, #201 

Sacramento, CA 95816 

Tel: (916) 446 7905 

Fax: (916) 446 3057 

vmelendez@crlaf.org 

ekautz@crlaf.org 

chelseal@crlaf.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA 

DOE, a fictitious name; and “I.D.,” a 

fictitious name, by and through her next 

friend, MARIA DOE; 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE; DARRYL RODERICK; 

JAGDEEP SINGH, individually and as 

administrator of the estate of Sushma Giri; 

V & N ASSOCIATES, LLC; and ALIDA 

ESTRADA, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD 

Hon. Morrison C. England 

STIPULATION BETWEEN 

PLAINTIFFS, COUNTY, AND 

SHERIFF’S OFFICE RE: 

APPLICABILITY OF TITLE VI AND 

SECTION 11135; AND ORDER 

L.R. 143 

 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 84 Filed 03/22/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

STIPULATION RE: APPLICABILITY OF TITLE VI etc. Doe, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al. 

Case No. 2:21-CV-01438-MCE-CKD 

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

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, on the one part, and and County of Sacramento and 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office (“Defendants”) on the other part, seek to resolve a 

discovery dispute and avoid unnecessary expenses; 

Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and 

agree that the following statements of fact and law, and their admissibility, are 

established for the purposes of this litigation, including trial: 

1) Defendant Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office (“SCSO”) was a “program or 

activity receiving Federal financial assistance” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 

during the time period relevant to this action. 

2) SCSO was a “program or activity” that received financial assistance from the state 

pursuant to Gov. Code § 11135, during the time period relevant to this action. 

3) Defendants were subject to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and Gov. Code 

§ 11135 with regard to the events alleged in the complaint in this action. 

This stipulation does not affect the Motion for Reconsideration currently pending 

before the Court (dkt. 74.) This stipulation does not bind Defendants as to any matter 

outside of this litigation. 

Dated: March 18, 2024 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

FOUNDATION 

 /s/ Ezra Kautz 

 Ezra Kautz 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: March 18, 2024 PORTER SCOTT 

 /s/ John Whitefleet (authorized on 3/18/24) 

Attorneys for Defendants County of Sacramento, 

Sacramento Sheriff’s Office 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 27, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 84 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 2