Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01668/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01668-5/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

Geri Lynn Green, Bar No. 127709 

LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN 

5214-F Diamond Heights Blvd., #332 

San Francisco, CA 94131-2175 

Telephone: (415) 575-3235 

Facsimile: (415) 648-7648 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

VERDELLA SHAW 

William Johnson, Bar No. 76909 

Law Office of William Johnson 

6 El Dorado South, Suite 600 

Stockton, CA 95202 

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 

County of San Joaquin 

Courthouse—Room 711 

222 East Weber Ave. 

Stockton, CA 95202-2777 

Attorneys for Defendants 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, BAXTER DUNN, 

ROBERT HART, M.D. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VERDELLA SHAW, individually and as a 

representative of the ESTATE OF 

MAURICE SHAW, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, a municipality, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:01-cv-1668 MCE PAN 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

OPPOSITION TO POST TRIAL 

MOITONS

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:01-cv-01668-MCE -PAN Document 334 Filed 04/13/06 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

1

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL OF 

RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. As a result of a confusion in the reading of the local rules concerning e-filing, 

service procedures and requirements, and the time calculations for filing, Plaintiff’s counsel, 

Geri Green inquired of the clerk’s office as to the proper timing and procedures when e-filing 

an opposition. 

2. On March 31, 2006, Geri Green received the following information from 

Michele Krueger, Generalist Clerk for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California: 

“Electronic service is the same as if you mailed the opposition. So the same rules that apply to 

"mailing" a document in terms of time, apply to electronic service. E-filing is the same a 

personal service when you are calculating time.” 

3. Following the interpretation of the clerk, Geri Green, e-filed her opposition to the 

post trial motions on April 3, 2006, 14 days before the hearing date of April 17, 2006. 

4. Counsel for Defendants, William Johnson, did not agree with this interpretation 

based on the language in Local Rule 78-230 and asked for three additional days to file his 

reply. In order to accomplish that, it will be necessary for the court to receive the reply brief 

with on the Saturday before the hearing date of April 17th. 

5. Plaintiff will agree to stipulate to Defendant’s request of three additional days in 

light of the confusion. However, she does not wish to compromise the court’s ability to review 

the briefing. 

6. Accordingly, it is stipulated to give Defendant three additional days with which 

to respond to the opposition to the post-trial motions and continue the hearing date to May 1, 

2006 

7. For all of the reasons stated above, the Parties hereby stipulate that Plaintiff may 

file her opposition to the post-trial motions motion on April 3, 2006, Defendants may file their 

Reply on April 15, 2006 and the hearing date on the motions may be continued to May 1, 

2006, pursuant to Civ. L.R. 54-293(a). 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:01-cv-01668-MCE -PAN Document 334 Filed 04/13/06 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

2

Date: April __, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN 

S/ Geri Lynn Green

Attorney for Plaintiff, Verdella Shaw 

Date: April __, 2006 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNSEL 

S/ Quendrith Leigh Macedo

Deputy County Counsel 

Date: April __, 2006 LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM JOHNSON 

S/ William Johnson

Attorneys for Defendants SAN JOAQUIN 

COUNTY, BAXTER DUNN, PAUL AND 

ROBERT HART M.D. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:01-cv-01668-MCE -PAN Document 334 Filed 04/13/06 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

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VERDELLA SHAW, individually and as a 

representative of the ESTATE OF 

MAURICE SHAW, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, a municipality, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:01-cv-1668 MCE PAN 

ORDER RE POST-TRIAL 

MOTIONS 

 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the 

Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff may file her opposition to the post-trial motions motion 

on April 3, 2006, Defendants may file their Reply on April 15, 2006 and the hearing 

date on the motions may be continued to May 1, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2006

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:01-cv-01668-MCE -PAN Document 334 Filed 04/13/06 Page 4 of 4