Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02439/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02439-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

LAWRENCE BRAGMAN, SB #104039

Attorney at Law

912 Lootens Place

San Rafael, California 94901

Telephone: (415) 459-6060

Facsimile: (415) 459-6067

Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS SIUDA, by and through his

Guardian Ad Litem, TERESA SIUDA,

DOMINICK TRANFAGLIA, by and

through his Guardian Ad Litem, 

CHRISTINA TRANFAGLIA, TERESA

SIUDA, an individual, and CHRISTINA

TRANFAGLIA, an individual,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

NUMBER THREE, and DOES 1 - 100,

inclusive,

 Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: CIV. S-03-2439 FCD KJM

STIPULATION RE: CONTINUANCE OF

LAW AND MOTION CUT-OFF, 

PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES

DUE TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES 

AND PROPOSED ORDER THEREON

COME NOW plaintiffs, NICHOLAS SIUDA by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, 

TERESA SIUDA and his attorney, Lawrence Bragman, and DOMINICK TRANFAGLIA by and

through his Guardian Ad Litem, CHRISTINA TRANFAGLIA and his attorney, Lawrence

Bragman; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorney, Kendall J.

Newman, who do hereby stipulate and agree:

//

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 34 Filed 10/31/05 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

1. The above captioned case involves allegations of sexual abuse of the two minor

plaintiffs by another minor. The alleged instances of sexual abuse occurred at Child

Development Center Three, a facility operated by the U.S. Air Force at Travis Air Force Base.

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1 ).

2. Plaintiffs’ attorney, the undersigned, is a sole practitioner. At present, he is scheduled

to begin trial in a medical malpractice case in San Francisco Superior Court, Kohanzadeh v.

University of California-San Francisco, Case No.: CGC-04-431852, on Monday, October 31,

2005. That trial involves very serious injuries to the plaintiff (renal failure) and is expected to

last for three weeks. 

3. The hearing on defendant’s Summary Judgment is presently set for hearing on

November 18, 2005. The original hearing date of November 4, 2005 was continued by the court.

Prior to that continuance, plaintiff’s counsel had also requested a continuance with defense

counsel because the electronic service of the motion was routed to a bulk mail file. As a

consequence, plaintiffs’ counsel was not aware of the pendency of the motion until defense

counsel telephoned him to discuss the status of the case. In the meantime, the court’s

rescheduling of the matter requires that plaintiffs file their response by Friday, November 4th

which is in the middle of the planned first week of the Kohanzadeh case. This creates a

irreconcilable conflict for plaintiffs’ counsel due to his prior commitment to try that matter.

Accordingly, both plaintiffs’ counsel and defense counsel are agreeable to continuing the hearing

on the defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion to December 16, 2005 in order to allow plaintiffs

adequate time to prepare an adequate response to the defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion in

this case. If the continuance is not granted, plaintiffs would be precluded from preparing an

adequate response and would effectively be denied a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

Accordingly, both parties are agreeable to the requested continuance on the following terms and

conditions.

4. At present, the parties have completed discovery and disclosure of experts. The final

dispositive motion deadline is now set for November 4, 2005. The Final Pretrial Conference is

now set for January 20, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.. The trial date is set for April 4, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 34 Filed 10/31/05 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

5. Under the terms of the stipulation, the final dispositive motion date of November 4,

2005 would be continued until December 16, 2005. The hearing on defendant’s Summary

Judgment Motion would be continued from November 18, 2005 until December 16, 2005 at 10

a.m.. Plaintiffs’ Opposition, now due on November 4, 2005 would be due on November 21,

2005. Defendant’s Reply to the Opposition would be due on December 6, 2005. The Final

Pretrial Conference now set for January 20, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. would be continued until March

3, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.. The trial of the matter would be continued from April 4, 2006 at 9:00

a.m. until June 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: October 31, 2005 /s/ LAWRENCE BRAGMAN 

Lawrence Bragman

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: October 31, 2005 /s/ KENDALL J. NEWMAN 

 Kendall J. Newman

 Attorney for Defendant

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS ORDERED THAT: the final dispositive motion

date of November 4, 2005 is hereby continued to December 16, 2005. The hearing on

defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion is continued from November 18, 2005 to December 16,

2005 at 10 a.m. Plaintiffs’ Opposition, previously due on November 4, 2005 is now due on

November 21, 2005. Defendant’s Reply to the Opposition is due on December 6, 2005. The

Final Pretrial Conference set for January 20, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. is continued to March 3, 2006

at 1:30 p.m.. The trial of the matter is continued from April 4, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. to June 13,

2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: October 31, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02439-TLN-CKD Document 34 Filed 10/31/05 Page 3 of 3