Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07731/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07731-0/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

- 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

25

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., SBN 69888

PATRICK M. BUELNA, Esq., SBN 317043

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

Airport Corporate Center

7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120

Oakland, CA 94621

Telephone: (510) 839-5200

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882

Email: John.Burris@johnburrislaw.com

Email: Patrick.Buelna@johnburrislaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CASEY, an individual.

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.

.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:18-cv-07731-KAW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

AS MODIFIED

Case 4:18-cv-07731-KAW Document 18 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

- 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

25

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, and respectfully requested, by and between Plaintiff and 

Defendant by and through their designated counsel, that:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 26, 2018. Dckt #1.

WHEREAS, Defendant answered on February 4, 2019. Dckt #4. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint as a matter of right on February 

21, 2019. Dckt #12.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff on or about February 28, 2019, Plaintiff learned that there was 

reason to believe that Defendant Schmidt was not a Santa Rosa City employee but a Sonoma 

County employee. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to amend his Second Amended Complaint to correct the 

mistake of naming Schmidt as a City Employee rather than County employee and include 

Sonoma County as a Defendant.

WHEREAS, the parties agree and stipulate to allowing Plaintiff leave to amend his 

complaint.

WHEREAS, for the aforementioned reasons, there exists good cause to amend the 

Complaint to name the deputy and County involved as Defendants. 

Therefore, all parties stipulate and respectfully request the Court permit Plaintiff to file a 

Second Amended Complaint to correct the mistake of Defendant Schmidt’s employee, and 

include the County. 

Further, the parties respectfully request that the Court vacate the present Case 

Management Conference date to permit all the parties to make an appearance and participate in 

the reciprocal Initial Disclosures and prepare a Joint Case Management Statement.

IT IS SO AGREED.

Dated: March 21, 2019 Law Offices of John L. Burris

___/s/_Patrick M. Buelna____

Patrick Buelna

Attorneys for Plaintiff

//

Case 4:18-cv-07731-KAW Document 18 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

- 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

Dated: March 21, 2019 City of Santa Rosa

/s/ John J. Fritsch____________

John Fritsch

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER AS MODIFIED

Per the stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint, and 

shall file the second amended complaint within 14 days of this order.

Additionally, the April 9, 2019 case management conference is continued to July 9, 2019. 

The joint case management statement is due by July 2, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 22, 2019

________________________________________

HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-07731-KAW Document 18 Filed 03/22/19 Page 3 of 3