Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05817/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05817-6/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

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time to

Respond to Complaint, et al; [Proposed] Order 1 USDC Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH

BRUCE D. GOLDSTEIN, State Bar No. 135970

County Counsel

ANNE L. KECK, State Bar No. 136315

Deputy County Counsel

Office of the Sonoma County Counsel

575 Administration Drive, Room 105A

Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815

Telephone: (707) 565-2421

Facsimile: (707) 565-2624

E-mail: Anne.Keck@sonoma-county.org

Attorneys for Defendants the County

of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff’s 

Office, and Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

Defendants.

/

No. CV-11-05817 TEH

JOINT STIPULATION TO (1) EXTEND

TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT;

(2) EXTEND TIME FOR COUNTY

DEFENDANTS TO FILE NOTICE OF

APPEAL PER FRAP 4(a)(5), AND (3)

CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE DATE; [PROPOSED]

ORDER

This joint stipulation is entered into by and between all named parties in this action,

including: Plaintiffs Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”); Defendants the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, and Sonoma

County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas (collectively, “County Defendants”); and the City of Santa

Rosa, Santa Rosa Police Department, and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm (collectively,

“City Defendants”). Through this stipulation, the parties request the Court to enter an order: (1)

extending the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint to 30 days after the filing of the First

Amended Complaint; (2) extending the time for County Defendants to file a notice of appeal on a

portion of the Order entered as Docket No. 50 for 30 days per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(a)(5), and (3) continuing the initial Case Management Conference currently scheduled for

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 59 Filed 01/03/13 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

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time to

Respond to Complaint, et al; [Proposed] Order 2 USDC Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH

February 4, 2013, to March 11, 2013. The parties submit good cause supports this stipulation and

request for order, pursuant to the following.

RECITALS

A. In its “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss,” entered on

December 6, 2012 (Dkt. No. 50, the “Dismissal Order”), the Court dismissed several claims alleged

in the Complaint, but did not indicate whether Plaintiffs had leave to amend on any of the claims. 

The parties believe that the Court would give leave to amend on several of the claims, and are in the

process of negotiating a stipulation to permit the filing of the First Amended Complaint. In the

absence of the filing of the First Amended Complaint, Defendants’ answers to the initial Complaint

are due to be filed on December 20, 2012.

B. The parties agree to forego the filing of answers to the initial Complaint in light of

Plaintiffs’ decision to file a First Amended Complaint. The parties also agree and stipulate that any

responses to the First Amended Complaint shall be due 30 days after it is filed.

C. In addition, County Defendants have informed the parties of their intent to file a

notice of appeal on that portion of the Dismissal Order denying them sovereign immunity under the

Eleventh Amendment, which interlocutory appeal is allowed as a matter of right. However, County

Defendants also intend to file in the next few days a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider,

as well as an administrative motion for clarification, relating to certain specific provisions of the

Dismissal Order; the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue will not be addressed in such motions. 

County Defendants wish to preserve the jurisdiction of this Court to consider such motions prior to

the filing of the notice of appeal, and/or prevent any confusion regarding such issue. Accordingly,

the parties have agreed that County Defendants should be provided with an additional 30 days in

which to file their notice of appeal regarding the Dismissal Order pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), through and including February 4, 2013.

D. On December 14, 2012, the Court sua sponte set the Case Management Conference in

this case for February 4, 2013. Counsel for County Defendants, Anne Keck, has informed the

parties that she will be summoned to jury duty in the Sonoma County Superior Court that day. 

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 59 Filed 01/03/13 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

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time to

Respond to Complaint, et al; [Proposed] Order 3 USDC Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH

Accordingly, considering the schedules of all counsel, the parties have agreed to reschedule the Case

Management Conference to March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., if that date is convenient for the Court.

WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as

follows:

STIPULATION

1. The parties request the Court allow Defendants to forego filing answers to the initial

Complaint, and provide Defendants with 30 days to respond to the First Amended Complaint after it

is filed.

2. The parties request the Court to extend the time in which County Defendants may file

a notice of appeal relating to the Court’s Dismissal Order (Dkt. No. 50, entered on December 6,

2012), for an additional 30 days, through and including February 4, 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).

3. The parties request the Court to continue the initial Case Management Conference in

this case to March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., with the joint case management conference statement due

one week prior.

4. Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other

matters addressed in any Court order, nor does it preclude the parties from seeking additional relief

from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or otherwise.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 20, 2012 Bruce D. Goldstein, Sonoma County Counsel

By: /s/ Anne L. Keck

Anne L. Keck, Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for County Defendants

Dated: December 20, 2012 Caroline L. Fowler, Santa Rosa City Attorney

By: /s/ Robert L. Jackson

Robert L. Jackson, Assistant City Attorney

Attorneys for City Defendants

Dated: December 20, 2012 Robert Mann & Donald W. Cook, Attorneys at Law

 By: /s/ Donald W. Cook 

Donald W. Cook 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 59 Filed 01/03/13 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

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time to

Respond to Complaint, et al; [Proposed] Order 4 USDC Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. No answers to the initial Complaint are required, and Defendants are provided with

30 days in which to respond to the First Amended Complaint after it is filed.

2. The time in which County Defendants may file a notice of appeal relating to the

Court’s Dismissal Order (Dkt. No. 50, entered on December 6, 2012) is extended for an additional

30 days, through and including February 4, 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(a)(5); and

3. The initial Case Management Conference for this case, currently scheduled to occur

on February 4, 2013, is continued to March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. The parties shall file a joint case

management conference statement at least one week prior to the conference. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _____________ ______________________________________

HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

01/02/2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 59 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 4