Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00720/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00720-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

STIP. RE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DISCOVERY 

1 n:\lit\li2006\060903\00377437.doc 

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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961

Chief Trial Deputy 

ELIZABETH DEELEY, State Bar #23079 

Deputy City Attorney 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3982 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

E-Mail: elizabeth.deeleyfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITYAND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK BURDETT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

San Francisco Police Officers RAMON 

REYNOSA (#454), MARK SHEA 

(#2092) and SFPD DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive; SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT DOES 11 through 15, 

inclusive, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO, and City and County 

DOES 16 through 20, INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C06-0720 JCS 

STIPULATION REGARDING FILING 

OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DISCOVERY 

Date Action Filed: February 1, 2006 

Trial Date: May 14, 2007 

Plaintiff MARK BURDETT and Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

and Mark Shea, (collectively “the Parties”) by and through their respective undersigned counsel, 

hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 

1. Defendants will not object to Plaintiff amending his complaint to add the following 

state law claims from his currently pending state court case, Mark Burdett v. Ramon Reynoso, et al., 

C06-0720 JCS 

Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 25 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 26 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 3
STIP. RE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DISCOVERY 

2 n:\lit\li2006\060903\00377437.doc 

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

Case No. 440-761 filed in San Francisco Superior Court, which have the following claim numbers in 

the state court case: (i) false arrest and imprisonment (Claim One), (ii) assault and battery (Claim 

Two), (iii) interference with and retaliation for exercise of free speech (Claim Three), (iv) violation of 

California civil rights Bane Act (Claim Six)and (v) common law negligence (Claim Nine). For 

purposes of the statute of limitations, Defendants agree to treat these claims as if they had been filed 

on April 26, 2005, the date that the claims were filed in state court. Defendants reserve all defenses 

to these claims (including statute of limitations and Tort Claims Act defenses) that would have 

existed for these claims had Plaintiff pursued them in the state court case, Mark Burdett v. Ramon 

Reynoso, et al., Case No. 440-761 filed on April 26, 2005. 

2. Should Plaintiff elect to add these state claims to his federal complaint, Plaintiff will 

dismiss his currently pending state court case, Mark Burdett v. Ramon Reynoso, et al., Case No. 440-

761, without prejudice as to the claims identified in Paragraph 1 above and with prejudice as to all 

other claims. Plaintiff agrees to make an election as to whether he will add state claims to this federal 

case and dismiss the state claims from San Francisco Superior Court no later than June 12, 2006. 

3. Plaintiff will claim 25 hours worth of attorney’s fees accumulated to date in the state 

court case, Mark Burdett v. Ramon Reynoso, et al., Case No. 440-761, toward his attorney’s work in 

this federal case, in the event he pursues a petition for attorney’s fees in this federal case. Defendants 

will not oppose Plaintiff's claim to 25 hours in attorneys fees accumulated to date in that state court 

case on the basis that those hours were incurred in furtherance of that separate state court case. 

Defendants reserve all other objections and arguments regarding such attorneys fees. 

4. Defendants will not oppose Plaintiff adding, by June 12, 2006, individually named 

defendants that have already been identified in the complaint as Doe defendants. Should the Parties 

later learn that Doe 1 or the persons disclosed by defendants in response to Plaintiff's Special 

Interrogatories, Set One in Mark Burdett v. Ramon Reynoso, et al., Case No. 440-761, were 

mistakenly misidentified, Defendants will not oppose Plaintiff's naming of the properly identified 

defendant(s), unless Plaintiff was previously aware of the correct identity of such defendant(s) but 

failed to properly name such defendant(s). 

C06-0720 JCS 

Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 25 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 26 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 3
STIP. RE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DISCOVERY 

3 n:\lit\li2006\060903\00377437.doc 

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

5. Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate and agree that depositions taken in the state court 

case, Mark Burdett v. Ramon Reynoso, et al., Case No. 440-761, may be used in this case, the same as 

if they were taken in this case. 

6. Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate and agree that written discovery, including 

documents, and things, exchanged in the state court case, Mark Burdett v. Ramon Reynoso, et al., 

Case No. 440-761, may be used in this case, the same as if they were exchanged in this case, unless 

an objection to such use in this case on the basis of a difference in Federal and State standards and 

rules is made at or before the time that objections to such written discovery is due. 

Dated: May 19, 2006 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Attorney 

ELIZABETH L. DEELEY 

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/ 

ELIZABETH L. DEELEY 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND 

MARK SHEA 

Dated: May 19,2006 

 ROSENFELD LAW OFFICE 

 By:_/s/_________________________ 

 BEN ROSENFELD 

 Attorney at Law 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

C06-0720 JCS 

Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 25 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 3 of 3

Dated: May 22, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 26 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 3