Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03149/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03149-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

26

27

28

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. SBN 69888

BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, ESQ. SBN 222173

JAMES COOK, ESQ, SBN 300212

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

Airport Corporate Centre

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621

(510) 839-5200

Attorney for Plaintiff

ISABEL BEL MONTEZ

JOSEPH GARCIA SR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISABEL BEL MONTEZ, et al.

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal 

corporation; CITY OF STOCKTON POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; BLAIR ULRING in his 

capacity as CHIEF OF POLICE for the CITY 

OF STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

DOES 1-100, inclusive; individually and in their 

capacities as POLICE OFFICERS for CITY OF 

STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Defendants.

 / 

Case No. 2:10-cv-03149 MCE EFB

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Edmund 

F. Brennan

Complaint Filed: November 22, 2010

Trial: March 13, 2017

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs, through attorneys of record,

JAMES COOK, and BEN NISENBAUM, Law Offices of John Burris; and Defendants, CITY OF 

STOCKTON, et al., by and through attorneys of record TED DANIEL WOOD, that the following 

deadlines be continued:

Discovery Completion: June 1 2016 (Prior date was March 14, 2016)

Expert Disclosure: August 1, 2016 (Prior date was May 13, 2016)

Supplemental Expert Disc: August 20, 2016 (Prior date was June 2, 2016)

Case 2:10-cv-03149-MCE-EFB Document 35 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

26

27

28

Last Day for Dispositive Motions: November 15, 2016 (Prior date was September 15, 

2016).

All other dates remain as set forth in the Court’s Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order 

(Document 23). 

The Court requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel show good cause for a continuance. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel assert that there is good cause for a continuance, because until recently we had no contact 

with the client. Without client contact, we could not secure verification signatures to accompany 

discovery responses. The extra time is necessary to allow time for Plaintiffs’ counsel to establish 

consistent communication with minors I.G. and J.G. as well as determine whether they wish to 

continue pursuing the case. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: February 29, 2016 By: /s/ James Cook

James Cook

Law Offices of John Burris

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: February 29, 2016 By: /s/ Ted Daniel Wood

Ted Daniel Wood

City of Stockton

Attorney for Defendant

ORDER

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the deadlines specified 

above are continued in accordance with the foregoing request. All other dates and deadlines set forth 

in Court’s Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016

Case 2:10-cv-03149-MCE-EFB Document 35 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2