Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05498/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05498-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

Davis & 

Company

William J. Davis, Esq., #141844 

Kathryn Julia Woods, Esq., #228650 

Davis & Company, Attorneys 

Aon Center, 36th Floor 

707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3600 

Los Angeles, California 90017-3516 

Telephone (213) 253-5939 

Facsimile (213) 253-9939 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

A.H.D.C., etc., et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, etc., et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: CIV F-97-5498 OWW 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE TIME 

FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE THEIR 

RESPECTIVE RESPONSES AND 

REPLIES TO, AND TO CONTINUE TO 

HEARING DATE FOR, TOLBERT ET 

AL.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S 

FEES, RELATED SUBPOENAS, AND 

MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY; AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Current Hearing Date:April 26, 2006 

Time: 8:30 a.m. 

Place: Courtroom 2, 2500 Tulare, Fresno, CA

Plaintiffs A.H.D.C. and Ashwood Construction (“AHDC”) and defendants Robert "Todd" 

Tolbert, Stephen V. Henson, Sharon L. Henson, Hernand J. Koubratoff; Laura A. Mather; Vernon 

R. Wolley, Orie Reed; Barnell Caldwell; Diane R. Daniels; Richard Robinson; and Janet ReidBills (“Tolbert, et al.”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows: 

1. On March 22, 2006, Tolbert, et al. filed their “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 

the Ninth Circuits’ Judgment Dated March 8, 2006,” noticed to be heard on April 26, 2006, at 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:97-cv-05498-OWW -SMS Document 1360 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Davis & 

Company

8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2 of this Court, and subsequently served subpoenas on A.H.D.C. and 

Ashwood Construction, demanding that certain documents be produced at that hearing. 

2. On March 24, 2006, Tolbert, et al., filed their “Motion to Lift Stay of Citizen 

Defendants’ State Court Action,” also noticed to be heard on April 26, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 2 of this Court. 

3. AHDC’s response to these motions must be filed by April 7, 2006. AHDC anticipated 

filing responses to the subpoenas concurrently with their responses to the motions. 

4. AHDC has requested, and Tolbert et al. have agreed, that AHDC have additional time 

to respond to these motions, and that the time for Tolbert et al.’s reply and the hearing date be 

extended concomitantly. AHDC’s request for extension is based on the following: 

5. At this time, counsel is engaged in preparing responses to the three motions filed by 

Tolbert et al. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.1 Counsel for AHDC has other 

deadlines it must meet in the same time frame.

2

 

 

1

(i) “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Decision 

Dated February 28, 2006,” filed March 14, 2006 – AHDC’s response is due April 17, 2006. 

(ii) “Motion to Amend the Mandate to Instruct the District Court to Award Interest to Citizen 

Defendants,”, filed March 22, 2006 – AHDC’s response is due April 6, 2006. 

(iii)“Rule 39-1.8 Motion to Transfer Attorneys’ Fee Application to District Court,” also filed 

March 22, 2006 – AHDC’s response is due April 6, 2006. 

2

Pursuant to a Court-ordered briefing schedule, counsel is engaged in preparing a 

Reply/Answering Brief to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate 

District (BCP/Fox Hollow LLC et al., v. Alpha III, Inc., et al., Case No. D045138), in a case 

which involves complicated Fair Housing Act issues. The briefing schedule may not be changed 

as it has already been extended. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 17, the Reply/Answering 

Brief must be filed by April 13, 2006. 

Additionally, according to another court-ordered schedule, counsel is completing expert 

discovery in another case (Sunset Drive Corporation v. City of Redlands, California, CV02-9109 

TJH (RCx)), which also involves complicated Fair Housing Act and land use issues, and counsel 

deposed one of defendant’s experts in March 31, and must depose a second expert on April 18, 

2006 and defend two of plaintiff’s experts at deposition on April 13 and 21, respectively. 

Counsel is also currently engaged in preparing for April and May jury trials in both California 

Superior Court and U.S. District Court (The People of the State of California v. Moore, Case No. 

INM 159522, and Moore v City of Desert Hot Springs, Case No. EDCV98-137 MMM). 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:97-cv-05498-OWW -SMS Document 1360 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Davis & 

Company

6. These previously set deadlines and obligations occupy all available time for lead 

counsel William J. Davis to prepare the relevant opposition papers and particularly given the 

complex and unusual issues in all of the matters in which William J. Davis and Davis & 

Company are engaged counsel. 

THEREFORE, the parties jointly request and stipulate to the following briefing and 

hearing schedule for Tolbert et al.’s “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to the Ninth Circuits’ 

Judgment Dated March 8, 2006” and “Motion to Lift Stay of Citizen Defendants’ State Court 

Action”: 

1. AHDC shall file their responses to the motions and subpoenas on or before 

April 24, 2006; 

2. Tolbert et al. shall file their replies on or before May 30, 2006; 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:97-cv-05498-OWW -SMS Document 1360 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Davis & 

Company

3. Oral argument shall be held by the Court on or after June 7, 2006, as ordered by 

the Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: April 5, 2006 DAVIS & COMPANY 

WILLIAM J. DAVIS 

KATHRYN JULIA WOODS 

By_/s/ William J. Davis_______ 

William J. Davis 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: April 5, 2006 SAGASER, FRANSON & HAHESY 

By__/s/ Howard A. Sagaser_____ 

Howard A. Sagaser 

Attorneys for Defendants Robert "Todd" Tolbert, 

Stephen V. Henson, Sharon L. Henson, Hernand J. 

Koubratoff; Laura A. Mather; Vernon R. Wolley, 

Orie Reed; Barnell Caldwell; Diane R. Daniels; 

Richard Robinson; and Janet Reid-Bills 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court will hear oral argument on these motions on __June 

12_______, 2006, at _10:00_ a.m. 

Dated: ___April 11, 2006____ _/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER__________________ 

OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States District Judge

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:97-cv-05498-OWW -SMS Document 1360 Filed 04/13/06 Page 4 of 5
i

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

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:97-cv-05498-OWW -SMS Document 1360 Filed 04/13/06 Page 5 of 5