Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01556/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01556-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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-

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER [F.R.C.P. 56(F)] 

HAUSCHILD V. CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01556 WHA 

David M. Poore, SBN 192541 

BROWN | POORE LLP 

1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 420 

Walnut Creek, California 94597 

Telephone: (925) 943-1166 

Facsimile: (925) 955-8600 

dpoore@bplegalgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

THOMAS HAUSCHILD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHISN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS HAUSCHILD, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF RICHMOND; CHRISTOPHER 

MAGNUS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01556 WHA

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

DISMISSING FOURTH (HARASSMENT) 

AND FIFTH (VIOLATIONS OF THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION) CAUSES 

OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND 

ALLOWING A 90-DAY DISCOVERY 

PERIOD ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

ON PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF 

ACTION (POBR VIOLATIONS) 

[F.R.C.P. 56] 

HON. WILLIAM ALSUP 

Case 3:15-cv-01556-WHA Document 30 Filed 07/16/15 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-

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER [F.R.C.P. 56(F)] 

HAUSCHILD V. CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01556 WHA 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to this action, Plaintiff THOMAS 

HAUSCHILD, and Defendants CITY OF RICHMOND and CHRISTOPHER MAGNUS, hereby 

STIPULATE that Plaintiff shall dismiss with prejudice his Fourth Cause of Action for 

Harassment, and his Fifth Cause of Action for Violations of the California Constitution with 

prejudice. Defendants agree to continue the hearing date on their Partial Summary Judgment 

motion (as to the Sixth Cause of Action) for 90 days to permit Plaintiff time to conduct discovery 

on that Sixth Cause of Action which asserts violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural 

Bill of Rights (“POBR”), California Government Code Section 3300 et seq. 

With approval by this Court, this Stipulation should resolve the dispute set forth in 

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 24), filed in response to Defendants’ Motion 

for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17). 

The parties are not making this request for the purpose of any undue delay, and no party 

would suffer any prejudice if this stipulation was granted. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties that Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth 

Causes of Action to the First Amended Complaint shall be Dismissed with Prejudice. Defendants 

agree to and do continue the hearing date on their pending Partial Summary Judgment motion for 

90 days to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery as to the Sixth Cause of Action. 

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 15, 2015 /s/ Geoff Spellberg 

GEOFF SPELLBERG 

MYERS NAVE 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: July 15, 2015 

/s/ David M. Poore 

DAVID M. POORE 

SCOTT A. BROWN 

BROWN POORE LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:15-cv-01556-WHA Document 30 Filed 07/16/15 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-

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER [F.R.C.P. 56(F)] 

HAUSCHILD V. CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01556 WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, the Stipulation is GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Harassment and 

Violations of the California Constitution) to the First Amended Complaint shall be and are hereby 

dismissed with prejudice. 

 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted to conduct discovery 

for a period of 90 days on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17). 

The new hearing date on the defense motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be 

_______________ 2015. Plaintiff’s opposition is due 28 days before the new hearing date. 

Reply shall be due fourteen days thereafter. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July __, 2015 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2466223.1 

November 19, 16 2015 at Eight A.M.

Case 3:15-cv-01556-WHA Document 30 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 3