Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01504/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01504-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DATES 

1881-011\2132484.1

LAW OFFICES

W

U

L

FSB

E

R

G

R

E

ESE

C

O

L

VIG

&

FIRSTM

A

N

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

KAISER CENTER

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100

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

WULFSBERG REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Charles W. Reese - 045805 

Mark A. Stump - 104942 

Kaiser Center 

300 Lakeside Drive, 24th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612-3524 

Telephone: (510) 835-9100 

Facsimile: (510) 451-2170 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 

Richard E. Nosky - 130726 

Michael T. Rishwain - 109402 

City Hall - 425 N. El Dorado Street 

Stockton, CA 95202 

Telephone: (209) 937-8333 

Facsimile: (209) 937-8898 

Attorneys for Defendant 

City of Stockton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case No. 2:05-CV-01504-FCD-JFM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY 

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DATES 

TULEBURG AUTO BODY GARAGE AND 

TOW, a sole proprietorship; CHARTER WAY 

TOW, INC., a California corporation; DEBCO 

AUTO WRECKING, INC., dba DEBCO 

TOWING, a California corporation; MIDVALLEY TOWING, a partnership; JERRY 

BRISCOE, an individual; and ANN 

JOHNSTON, an individual, 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF STOCKTON, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

WEST LANE TOW, a sole proprietorship; ALL 

FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TOW, a sole 

proprietorship; COVEY AUTO EXPRESS, INC. 

dba PACIFIC TOWING, a California 

corporation; and PHOENIX, INC., a California 

corporation, 

Real Parties In Interest 

“AS MODIFIED”

Case 2:05-cv-01504-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 5
 -2- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DATES 

1881-011\2132484.1

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

LAW OFFICES

W

U

L

FSB

E

R

G

R

E

ESE

C

O

L

VIG

&

FIRSTM

A

N

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

KAISER CENTER

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100

WHEREAS, this case involves a dispute over the process through which the City of 

Stockton (“City”) procures police towing service contracts from private towing contractors, and 

the legality of certain substantive terms of such contracts, and 

WHEREAS, the City has in the past contracted with four of the Plaintiffs herein (Tuleburg 

Auto Body Garage & Tow, Charter Way Tow, Inc., Debco Auto Wrecking, Inc. and Mid-Valley 

Towing), among others, for police towing services, and 

WHEREAS, it has been the practice of the City to dispatch police tow services calls to 

anywhere in the City on a “rotating” basis, each towing contractor receiving a service call in the 

order they appear on a list before any receives a second call (a practice referred to as “rotational 

towing”), and 

WHEREAS, the City determined to replace rotational towing with a system of towing 

zones in which a single towing contractor would receive a tow franchise, granting it the right to 

receive substantially all the police tow service calls originating in a given zone (“zone towing”), 

and 

WHEREAS, the City initiated and conducted a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) process 

through which it selected three towing contractors to receive franchises, one per tow zone, and 

WHEREAS, the City later revised its plan for tow zones for allow for four zones and four 

franchises, and 

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005 the Stockton City Council awarded police tow franchises to 

four towing contractors, such franchises to begin on August 1, 2005 and 

WHEREAS, none of the towing contractors who are Plaintiffs herein was selected to 

receive a tow franchise, and 

WHEREAS, the City gave a notice of cancellation to all towing contractors participating in 

rotational towing, informing them that that their towing contracts with the City would be cancelled 

as of July 31, 2005, and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs challenged on numerous grounds the manner in which City 

conducted the Request for Proposal and franchise award process, and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the present suit on July 27, 2005, and on the next day filed a 

Case 2:05-cv-01504-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 5
 -3- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DATES 

1881-011\2132484.1

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

LAW OFFICES

W

U

L

FSB

E

R

G

R

E

ESE

C

O

L

VIG

&

FIRSTM

A

N

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

KAISER CENTER

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100

motion requesting a temporary restraining order to preserve rotational towing during the pendency 

of the lawsuit, and 

WHEREAS, to preserve the status quo and permit settlement discussions to take place, the 

City (1) temporarily extended the date on which all rotational towing contracts would be cancelled, 

and (2) entered into an agreement with three of the four tow franchisees to defer the 

implementation of the City’s franchise agreements with them, and 

WHEREAS, on April 11, 2006, the Stockton City Council adopted a resolution directing 

Stockton’s City Manager to take those actions necessary including as may be appropriate 

termination and cancellation of the Franchise Agreements; to withdraw the Notices of Cancellation 

of existing contracts with the current rotational towing companies in the City of Stockton issued in 

June 2005, to continue rotational towing under existing contracts until further action of the City 

Council; and to hold in abeyance the RFP process until further direction by the City Council, and 

WHEREAS, the City may or may not elect to initiate a new Request for Proposal process 

under its police tow franchise ordinance to award tow franchises on a zone towing basis, which 

from Plaintiffs’ perspective may give rise to some of the same legal challenges raised currently in 

the action; and 

WHEREAS, certain pretrial deadlines set under the Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 

Order of November 3, 2005 have very recently expired, or will expire, while the City develops any 

new process for procuring police towing services, and 

WHEREAS, the parties to this action have not previously requested any extensions of time 

for dates set under the Pretrial Order, and 

WHEREAS, the proposed new pretrial deadlines will not require a resetting of the trial date 

set herein for June 5, 2007. 

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate, through their respective counsel, that the Court may 

enter the following order. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:05-cv-01504-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 5
 -4- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DATES 

1881-011\2132484.1

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

LAW OFFICES

W

U

L

FSB

E

R

G

R

E

ESE

C

O

L

VIG

&

FIRSTM

A

N

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

KAISER CENTER

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100

DATED: May ______, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH N. MELEYCO 

By:______________________________________ 

KENNETH N. MELEYCO 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

TULEBURG AUTO BODY GARAGE & 

TOW, et al. 

DATED: May ______, 2006 WULFSBERG REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN 

By:_______________________________________ 

CHARLES W. REESE 

Attorney for Defendant 

CITY OF STOCKTON 

DATED: May ______, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES L. HASTINGS 

By:______________________________________ 

CHARLES L. HASTINGS 

Attorney for Real Parties in Interest 

WEST LANE TOW, ALL FOREIGN AND 

DOMESTIC TOW, COVEY AUTO 

EXPRESS, INC. dba PACIFIC TOWING 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:05-cv-01504-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 06/01/06 Page 4 of 5
 -5- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DATES 

1881-011\2132484.1

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

LAW OFFICES

W

U

L

FSB

E

R

G

R

E

ESE

C

O

L

VIG

&

FIRSTM

A

N

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

KAISER CENTER

300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524

TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING upon the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the Status Pretrial Scheduling Order is modified as follows: 

1. The percipient discovery cut-off shall be November 26, 2006. 

2. Expert disclosure shall be on December 30, 2006. 

3. Supplemental expert disclosure shall be on January 31, 2007. 

4. Dispositive motions shall be heard no later than March 2, 2007. 

In light of the extensions granted above conflicts now exist with the court’s calendar and 

the remaining dates set in this action. Accordingly, the following dates are also hereby RESET: 

5. The pretrial conference shall be conducted on May 4, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. The Joint 

Pretrial Statement shall be filed on or before April 27, 2007. The parties are to refer to the court’s 

pretrial Scheduling order as to the form and content of the statement. 

6. The jury trial shall be set for July 10, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 31, 2006 

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01504-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 06/01/06 Page 5 of 5