Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01282-3/pdf.json

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

---

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 

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPECTIVE RESPONSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER OF THE COURT 

Mario L. Beltramo, Jr., # 053146-0 

Daniel L. Wainwright, # 193486 

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard 

Wayte & Carruth LLP 

P.O. Box 28912 

5 River Park Place East 

Fresno, CA 93720-1501 

Telephone: (559) 433-1300 

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 

Attorneys for Defendant, MADERA COMMUNITY 

HOSPITAL 

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

GENEA SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RODERICK HICKMAN; FRENCHIE 

SELLF; JEANNE WOODFORD; 

RICHARD RIMMER; ROSANNE 

CAMPBELL; GWENDOLYN MITCHELL; 

SAMPATH SURYADEVARA, M.D.; 

SHELLY KRUSE, M.D.; MOHAMMED 

ANWAR, M.D.; SUSAN HOGELUND, 

R.N.; and MADERA HOSPITAL, a 

California Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________

Case No. CV-05-01282-0WW-WMW-PC 

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

RESPECTIVE RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; ORDER OF THE COURT 

First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/31/06

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

1. The parties hereby agree and stipulate that it is expected that each of the named 

defendants in this case will each bring Motions to Dismiss some and/or all of the causes of action 

currently asserted in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 

2. This stipulation encompasses those defendants who have authorized their 

respective attorneys to execute this stipulation on their behalf (namely MADERA COMMUNITY 

HOSPITAL, MOHAMMED ANWAR, M.D. and SAMPATH SURYADEVARA, M.D.) as well 

as the other named California Department of Correction defendants, all of whom are expected to 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 4
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE & 

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 OF THE PARTIES REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPECTIVE RESPONSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER OF THE COURT 

be represented by the State Attorney General’s Office in the future. 

3. The parties also acknowledge that many of the issues/arguments that will form the 

basis for a Motion to Dismiss in the above referenced case are substantially the same as to the 

issues and arguments raised in the Motions to Dismiss filed in the similar case of Allen v. 

Woodford, et al. (Case No. CV-01104-OWW-LJO). 

4. The hearings on the three pending Allen Motions to Dismiss are scheduled for 

April 10, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Oliver Wanger and it is possible the Court may grant 

some portion of the three defense Motions. 

5. The parties wish to have the benefit of the Court’s ruling on the Motions to 

Dismiss in the Allen matter before filing any response to the First Amended Complaint and thus, 

seek an extension of time until after the Court issues an Order on the Allen Motions. 

6. By extending the time for defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint 

in the Scott case, the defendants will be educated as to which causes should be attacked, based on 

what the Court has already found in the parallel Allen case. 

7. By extending the time for defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint 

in the Scott case, plaintiff will be able to amend her current Complaint in accordance with the 

Court’s earlier findings has done in the Allen case 

8. It is hereby stipulated and agreed between plaintiff and defendants, through their 

respective counsel, as follows: 

a. Each defendant will have an “Open Extension” to Answer or otherwise 

respond to the First Amended Complaint in the Scott case until after the Court issues its Order on 

the three separate Motions to Dismiss in the Allen case. 

b. Within fifteen (15) Court days from the issuance of the Court’s Order on 

the three Allen Motions, assuming some portion of the three Motions is granted, plaintiff must 

either file a Second Amended Complaint or Notice that she will not be amending her First 

Amended Complaint. 

c. Defendants would then have twenty (20) Calendar days from the filing and 

serving of either plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint or Notice that she will not be amending 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 4
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE & 

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 OF THE PARTIES REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPECTIVE RESPONSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER OF THE COURT 

her First Amended Complaint to Answer or otherwise respond to the current Complaint. 

d. Should the Court deny, in their entirety, all three Motions to Dismiss in the 

Allen case, then each defendant in the Scott case shall have twenty (20) Calendar days from the 

issuance of the Court’s Order to Answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. 

This Stipulation contains the entire agreement among the parties. The undersigned hereby 

consents to the terms set forth in the foregoing Stipulation. 

Dated: April 6, 2006 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD 

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 

By: /s/ Daniel L. Wainwright 

Mario L. Beltramo, Jr. 

Daniel L. Wainwright 

Attorneys for Defendant, MADERA 

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 

Dated: April 6, 2006 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 

By: /s/ Jason A. Yurasek 

Jason A. Yurasek 

Margaret A. McLetchie 

Elizabeth P. Miller 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, GENEA SCOTT 

Dated: April 6, 2006 BAKER, MANOCK & JENSEN 

By: /s/ Suzanne D. McGuire 

Suzanne D. McGuire 

Attorneys for Defendant, MUHAMMAD 

ANWAR, M.D. 

Dated: April 6, 2006 ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE OF THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

By: /s/ William Krabbenhoft 

William Krabbenhoft 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendant, SAMPATH 

SURYADEVARA, M.D. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 4
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE & 

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 

4 

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPECTIVE RESPONSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER OF THE COURT 

ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING STIPULATION

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of plaintiff and defendants, as reflected above, 

and, for GOOD CAUSE showing and for the sake of JUDICIAL ECONOMY and EFFICIENCY, 

the Court ORDERS the following: 

a. The Court acknowledges that the above captioned matter (“Scott”) and the case of 

Allen v. Woodford, et al. (Case No. CV-01104-OWW-LJO) (“Allen”) involve a very similar fact 

pattern, involve many of the same defendants and involve many of the same causes of action, 

claims and defenses. 

b. The Court is aware that the defendants in the Allen matter have filed three separate 

Motions to Dismiss, which this Court will hear on April 10, 2006. 

c. Each defendant in the Scott case will have an “Open Extension” to Answer or 

otherwise respond to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint until after the Court issues its Order on 

the three separate Motions to Dismiss in the Allen matter. 

d. Within fifteen (15) Court days from the issuance of the Court’s Order on the three 

Allen Motions, assuming some portion of the three Motions are granted, plaintiff must either file 

a Second Amended Complaint or Notice that she will not be amending her First Amended 

Complaint. 

e. Defendants thereafter will have twenty (20) Calendar days from the filing and 

serving of either plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint or Notice that she will not be amending 

her First Amended Complaint to Answer or otherwise respond to the current Complaint. 

f. Should the Court deny, in their entirety, all three Motions to Dismiss in the Allen

case, then each defendant in the Scott case shall have twenty (20) Calendar days from the 

issuance of the Court’s Order to Answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. 

DATED: April 11, 2006 

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

 Judge Oliver W. Wanger 

00002/00223-925202.v1 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 04/13/06 Page 4 of 4