Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00163-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LATEACHEEAH G. ANDERSON

SALVATTO, and RICHARD

SALVATTO, individually and as 

Guardians for JAMAL THROWER, a

minor,

CASE NO. S-04-0163 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

COUNTY OF SOLANO, CITY OF

VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

LIEUTENANT LIDDICOET,

OFFICER K. McCARTHY, VALLEJO

POLICE DEPARTMENT, WATCH

COMMANDER K. SCHROEDER,

CORPORAL B. CLARK, OFFICER

WHITNEY,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter came on for hearing on December 12, 2005.

Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(c), and plaintiffs responded with a Rule 56(f)

motion to stay defendants’ motion. After consulting with the

parties, the court makes the following orders:

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 41 Filed 12/19/05 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

I. PREVIOUS DATES AND PLEADINGS

This court’s scheduling order of April 9, 2004, as

amended on August 25, 2005, and all dates set therein, are hereby

vacated. All pleadings subsequent to that scheduling order are

hereby ordered stricken.

II. FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE

A further status conference is scheduled for March 17,

2006 at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall submit their status reports

seven days before that conference. At that time, the court will

consider a new scheduling order. 

III. AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of this order to

file a motion to amend the complaint. 

IV. REOPENING OF DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS

Good cause having been shown, discovery proceedings are

reopened until a new deadline for discovery is established at the

March 17, 2006 status conference. 

V. SANCTIONS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f),

which permits the court, in granting a party’s motion to stay or

refuse the opposing party’s motion for summary judgment, to “make

such other order as is just,” as a condition of granting

plaintiffs’ request the court orders plaintiffs to pay

defendants’ costs incurred in preparing the motion for summary

judgment. Defendants moved for summary judgment in good faith

reliance on the close of discovery and pursuant to the court’s

scheduling order of April 9, 2004, as amended on August 25, 2005. 

As a result of the court’s granting of plaintiffs’ request the

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 41 Filed 12/19/05 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

3

work of defendants’ counsel in preparing that motion has now been

for naught. Defendants should not be penalized for these

actions. 

Defendants have submitted an affidavit, establishing

attorneys fees incidental to preparing the motion in the amount

of $1,462.50, and plaintiffs are ordered to pay defendants that

amount. (See Whitefeet Decl. ¶ 9.) To the extent that

plaintiffs must personally pay these fees, their remedy is

against their previous attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 16, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 41 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 3