Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02326/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02326-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

{01569445.DOCX} 1

3rd JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND ORDER

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

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Stephen E. Horan, SBN 125241

Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, SBN 300364

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF LINCOLN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF LINCOLN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00270- MCE-EFB

RELATED CASE: 2:15 –CV-02326-MCE-EFB 

3rd JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST-AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

ORDER

Complaint Filed: 01/30/2015

First Amended Complaint: 05/03/2016

/

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE that Defendant CITY OF 

LINCOLN, may have until July 14, 2016, to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s FirstAmended Complaint for CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00270- MCE-EFB, prior to which Parties intend to 

file a joint stipulation to consolidate. This Court issued a Related Case Order agreeing the two 

cases are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Parties are attempting to draft an allencompassing complaint to consolidate the above-mentioned related matters into one.

The delay is caused by the death of one of Plaintiff’s Counsels’ client, Patrick Connally, 

who has eight pending actions in a separate matter. During the course of the last month, Plaintiff’s 

counsel had to file eight (8) successor-of-interest motions in the Northern District. The process 

entails filing the initial successor-of-interest motion, a motion for leave to amend complaint, 

Case 2:15-cv-02326-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2
{01569445.DOCX} 2

3rd JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND ORDER

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

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

replies for said motions, while amending the underlying complaints and filing new complaints. 

This takes up a significant amount of time. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to prepare a

[proposed] operative complaint. Parties respectfully request a final extension of time to respond, 

so Parties may file a joint stipulation to consolidate the two matters. 

Parties intend to file a joint-stipulation to consolidate and attach the all-encompassing 

complaint as the [Proposed] Operative Complaint for both matters prior to the deadline for CITY 

OF LINCOLN to respond to Plaintiff’s First-Amended Complaint. Thereafter, if this Court grants 

parties’ joint stipulation to consolidate, Plaintiff can file the operative complaint. This extension 

exceeds the twenty-eight (28) days allowed under Eastern District Local Rule 144(a) and therefore 

requires approval of this stipulation by the court. This is the third and final stipulation for an 

extension of time between the parties. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. 

Dated: June 23, 2016 PORTER SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By/s/ Hovannes Nalbandyan

Steven E. Horan

Hovannes G. Nalbandyan

Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF LINCOLN 

Dated: June 23, 2016 THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

By /s/ Thomas E. Frankovich (Authorized) 

Thomas E. Frankovich

Attorney for Plaintiff,

BYRON CHAPMAN

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02326-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2