Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03633/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03633-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

 

David M. Poore, SBN 192541 

KAHN BROWN & POORE LLP 

30 Fifth Street, Second Floor 

Petaluma, California 94952 

Telephone: (707) 763-7100 

Facsimile: (707) 763-7180 

dpoore@kahnbrownlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PATRICK K. FAULKNER, COUNTY COUNSEL 

Sheila Shah Lichtblau SBN 167999 

Stephen Raab, SBN 180939 

3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 

San Rafael, CA 94903 

Tel.: (415) 499-6117, Fax: (415) 499-3796 

Attorney(s) for the County of Marin, Gretchen Melendy and Mariano Zamudio 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARIA COZZI, MARTHA GRIGSBY, 

BEVERLY HODGES, YUN BIN HSU, JOAN 

G. MONTEVERDI, MARYBETH PASCALE, 

MONICA H. PATENAUDE, MARGARET A. 

TURNER, THOMAS R. WATSON 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF MARIN; MARIO ZAMUDIO; 

GRETCHEN MELENDY; and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 08 03633 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST 

PLAINTIFF MARTHA GRIGSBY 

Defendants County of Marin, Mariano Zamudio and Gretchen Melendy (hereinafter 

“Defendants”) and Plaintiffs MARIA COZZI; MARTHA GRIGSBY; BEVERLY HODGES; 

YUN BIN HSU; JOAN G. MONTEVERDI; MARYBETH PASCALE; MONICA H. 

PATENAUDE; and MARGARET A. TURNER (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) hereby agree and 

stipulate as follows: 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF MARTHA GRIGSBY 

 -1-

COZZI, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF MARIN, ET AL. U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. C08 03633 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S

Case 4:08-cv-03633-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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-

COZZI, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF MARIN, ET AL. U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. C08 03633 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF MARTHA GRIGSBY 

 WHEREAS Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Martha 

Grigsby’s claims on January 6, 2010 with a hearing date of February 10, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. before 

Judge Hamilton in the United States District Court, Northern District of California – Oakland 

Courthouse; 

 WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ counsel is scheduled to commence a jury trial in the United States 

District Court, Northern District of California – San Francisco Courthouse on February 8, 2010 

before the Hon. Maxine M. Chesney. Plaintiff’s counsel recently attended the pre-trial 

conference in that matter, and Judge Chesney indicated that the case would proceed as scheduled. 

Judge Chesney has ordered that trial will take place between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. 

daily. As such, plaintiff’s counsel would be unable to both attend a hearing in the instant matter 

before Judge Hamilton at 9:00 a.m. on February 10, 2010 in the Oakland Federal Courthouse and

attend the trial proceedings at 8:30 a.m. on February 10, 2010 in the San Francisco Federal 

Courthouse. 

 WHEREAS the parties have agreed to stipulate to allow the hearing on defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment to be continued to accommodate plaintiffs’ counsel’s trial 

schedule. The parties propose the court keep the hearing on the same date and move the hearing 

time from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to allow plaintiffs’ counsel time to conclude trial proceedings 

and travel to the Oakland Federal Courthouse. Alternatively, the parties do agree and stipulate to 

move the hearing date as follows: 

• February 11, 2010 at or after 3:00 p.m.; 

• February 12, 2010 at or after 3:00 p.m.; or 

• any other date and/or time which is deemed appropriate by this Court with 

the exception of February 16-19, 2010, in which defendants’ counsel is 

unavailable. Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates that his February 8, 2010 trial should 

be concluded on or before February 22, 2010. 

Local Rule 7.7(b) states that after the opposition to a motion has been filed, the parties 

may stipulate in writing to continue a hearing. In the instant proceeding, this motion has been 

Case 4:08-cv-03633-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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 

 

fully briefed by way of moving papers, opposition papers, and reply papers. As such, the parties 

submit the instant stipulated request.

Date: February ___, 2010 

 PATRICK K. FAULKNER

COUNTY COUNSEL

By:________________________________

 Sheila Lichtblau

Deputy County Counsel 

Defendant County of Marin 

Date: February ___, 2010 KAHN BROWN POORE 

By:________________________________

David Poore, 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PROPOSED ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment currently scheduled for February 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby 

continued to _______________________, 2010 at __________________ .m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________, 2009 

_______________________________ 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF MARTHA GRIGSBY 

 -3-

COZZI, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF MARIN, ET AL. U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. C08 03633 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S

February 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

February 10 3:00 p.m.

Case 4:08-cv-03633-PJH Document 123 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3