Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04533/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04533-8/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

ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ. CSB# 159747 

DENNIS R. INGOLS, ESQ., CSB# 236458 

THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. POWELL 

925 West Hedding Street 

San Jose, California 95126 

T: 408-553-0200 

F: 408-553-0203 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DAVID & MELISSA BURKE, 

CLIFTON FARINA 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(San Francisco Division) 

DAVID BURKE, et al ) Case No. C 06-04533 SBA 

) 

) 

vs. ) 

 ) STIPULATION AND ORDER 

 ) TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al ) ALLOW DEFENDANT TO BRIEF

 ) EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM IN 

 Defendants ) PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

___________________________________) MOTIONS

The parties hereto, in consultation with their respective counsel, do hereby agree and 

stipulate as follows, and respectfully request that this court order same: 

1. Plaintiffs may amend their complaint (First Amended Complaint attached) to 

include as a defendant Timothy Bartholomew and file same upon receipt of this 

Stipulation signed by the court. 

2. Defendants’ counsel waives service of complaint on defendant Bartholomew’s 

behalf, accepting the e-filed version of the First Amended Complaint as service 

on defendant Anthony Bartholomew. Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of all 

plaintiffs, deem the First Amended Complaint answered by defendant 

Bartholomew as of the date said amended complaint is properly e-filed. 

Case 4:06-cv-04533-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:06-cv-04533-SBA Document 93 Filed 10/17/07 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

Defendant Bartholomew shall not be required to file a separate answer. The 

answer of defendants County of Alameda, Mark Foster, and Kurt Von Savoye 

shall be the answer of defendant Bartholomew, but shall be deemed dated and 

entered when the First Amended Complaint is e-filed. 

3. The defendant’s counsel shall have 15 days from the date of filing of the First 

Amended Complaint to file a supplemental brief on their pending summary 

judgment motion to address the 3rd Cause of Action in consideration of the 

proper naming of defendant Bartholomew as a defendant. 

4. Defendant Bartholomew reserves all rights to assert Plaintiffs’ failure to 

comply with relevant statutes of limitation. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Date: 10/3/ 07 /s/ Dennis R. Ingols 

 Dennis R. Ingols, Esq. 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 Date: 10/3/ 07 /s/ Catherine E. Wheeler 

 Catherine E. Wheeler, Esq. 

 Attorney for Defendants 

ORDER 

Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the court does hereby adopt said 

stipulation and makes same an order of this court. 

Date: 10/ /07 

 ________________________________ 

 JUDGE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DIST. CALIFORNIA 

 

Case 4:06-cv-04533-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 2

16

Case 4:06-cv-04533-SBA Document 93 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2