Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00549/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00549-4/pdf.json

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

---

McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND 

OTHER DATES PENDING RELEVANT MOTION IN 

RELATED FEDERAL ACTION – 06-00549 MCE DAD

 

JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (State Bar No. 55632) 

NOAH G. BLECHMAN (State Bar No. 197167) 

MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY,

PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

1211 Newell Avenue 

Post Office Box 5288 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 939-5330 

Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF VALLEJO, ROBERT NICHELINI, JEROME 

PATZER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LORI BAUER, individually, and as 

Personal Representative of the Estate of 

Andrew Washington, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal 

corporation; ROBERT NICHELINI, in his 

capacity as Chief of Police for the CITY 

OF VALLEJO; JEROME PATZER, 

individually and in his capacity as a police 

officer for the CITY OF VALLEJO; and 

DOES 1-25, inclusive, individually and in 

their capacities as police officers for the 

CITY OF VALLEJO,, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 2:06-cv-00549-MCE-DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING TRIAL AND OTHER 

DATES PENDING RELEVANT MOTION 

IN RELATED FEDERAL 

ACTION______________________________

Pre-Trial Conference: September 7, 2007 

Trial Date: October 15, 2007 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to this action, 

through their respective counsel of record, and approved by the Court in the accompanying Order, 

as follows: 

 1. Currently, this matter is set for a pre-trial conference on September 7, 2007, and 

has a trial date of October 15, 2007. 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-00549-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 08/10/07 Page 1 of 5
McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND 

OTHER DATES PENDING RELEVANT MOTION IN 

RELATED FEDERAL ACTION – 06-00549 MCE DAD

2 

 2. A related case, though not formally ordered as a related case per LR 83-123, is that 

of Andrew Washington v. Taser International, Inc., Case No. 05-CV-00881 DFL GGH. 

The Washington case, though filed in 2005 as opposed to this Bauer case filed in 2006, does not 

currently have a trial date set. 

 3. Both the Bauer case and the Washington case arise out of the same event or 

occurrence, namely the attempted arrest and apprehension of Mr. Andrew Washington 

(“Decedent”) by officers from the Vallejo Police Department (“VPD”) on September 15, 2004, 

which subsequently resulted in the death of Mr. Washington. Both cases involve claims for 

wrongful death in relation to the facts and circumstances surrounding Decedent’s arrest. 

 4. The Bauer case is being brought by the mother of Decedent Washington who 

contends that the use of the Taser to attempt to apprehend Decedent caused his death. Taser 

International, the manufacturer of the Taser, is not a party in the Bauer case. 

 5. The Washington case is being brought by the son of Decedent versus Taser 

International, claiming strict liability, negligence and other defect claims as a result of the use of 

the Taser. The City of Vallejo and officers from the VPD are not currently parties to this 

Washington case. 

 6. Recently, Plaintiff in the Washington case filed a motion for leave to file a First 

Amended Complaint to name the City of Vallejo and officers from the VPD as parties to the 

Washington case for claims of alleged civil rights violations arising out of Washington’s death. 

 7. As of the preparation of this stipulation and order, the Washington parties had 

briefed this motion and Judge Ralph R. Beistline has taken the matter under submission, without 

argument. Plaintiff’s counsel in the Washington case has advised the Court in pleadings that if 

the amendment is allowed, he will move to consolidate Washington with Bauer. 

 8. The parties agree that if Plaintiff Washington prevails on his motion for leave to 

file a First Amended Complaint, naming the City of Vallejo and officers from the VPD as parties 

to the Washington case, then there will exist many overlapping issues and parties in the two 

cases, necessitating a consolidation of these two cases for the purposes of discovery and trial. 

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-00549-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 08/10/07 Page 2 of 5
McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND 

OTHER DATES PENDING RELEVANT MOTION IN 

RELATED FEDERAL ACTION – 06-00549 MCE DAD

3 

 9. Per any consolidation, it is likely that the Washington case, filed prior to Bauer, 

will be the lead case so all current deadlines in Bauer will be vacated by the Court. 

 10. Based upon these facts, there is good cause for this Court to grant a brief 

continuance of the expert discovery deadline, pre-trial conference and trial dates for 

approximately ninety (90) days pending the outcome of Plaintiff Washington’s motion for leave 

to file a First Amended Complaint, which is currently under submission. 

 11. The parties in this Bauer case have disclosed experts and Defendants have taken 

the deposition of one of Plaintiff’s experts. One expert, Dr. Spitz, remains to be deposed in this 

case, though these consolidation issues have complicated the scheduling and taking of this 

deposition. 

 12. Consolidation of these two cases is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort and 

other economies, to both the Court and the parties. Per the requirements of LR 83-123, if leave to 

amend is granted, then both actions would involve the same or similar parties and are based on 

the same or similar claims, arising out of the same event, and would involve similar questions of 

fact and of law. The assignment of these cases to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to 

effect a substantial savings of judicial effort. 

 13. It is likely that the same witnesses will testify in both actions and it is likely that 

experts in both actions will also overlap. 

 14. Failing to consolidate these actions may force the parties to engage in substantial 

duplication of labor, which will also result in duplication of effort and resources by the Court. 

 15. Failing to consolidate these actions may also result in differing results between the 

two cases, which involve many overlapping issues, and will violate California’s “one action rule” 

for wrongful death claims. Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 807 (the so 

called “one action rule” generally requires that all claimants join or be joined in a single action). 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-00549-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 5
McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND 

OTHER DATES PENDING RELEVANT MOTION IN 

RELATED FEDERAL ACTION – 06-00549 MCE DAD

4 

 16. As such, good cause has been demonstrated by the parties to allow for a brief 

continuance of the trial of this Bauer matter, pending the outcome of Plaintiff Washington’s 

motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Should the Plaintiff Washington’s motion be 

granted, this would allow the parties in this Bauer case to take such action as is necessary, in 

conjunction with the parties in the Washington case, to consolidate these two practically identical 

actions pertaining to the same facts and circumstances. 

 17. In that vein, per the good cause demonstrated by the parties above, the parties 

propose the following new dates for such an order from the Court: 

Proposed New Scheduling Order Dates

 Description Proposed New Deadline

 Deadline to complete expert discovery November 16, 2007 

 Joint Final Pretrial Statement November 19, 2007 

 Final Pre-trial Conference December 7, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

 Trial Date January 14, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: ______________, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 

By: /s/ Nisenbaum, Ben 

John L. Burris, Esq./Ben Nisenbaum, Esq., 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: ______________, 2007 MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY,

PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

By: /s/ Fitzgerald, James V. III 

James V. Fitzgerald, III / Noah G. Blechman 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF VALLEJO, ROBERT NICHELINI and 

JEREMY PATZER 

Case 2:06-cv-00549-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 08/10/07 Page 4 of 5
McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

P.O. BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 

TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND 

OTHER DATES PENDING RELEVANT MOTION IN 

RELATED FEDERAL ACTION – 06-00549 MCE DAD

5 

ORDER

 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED THAT 

THE DATES CURRENTLY SET IN THIS MATTER ARE CONTINUED PER THE 

PROPOSED NEW SCHEDULING ORDER DATES LISTED ABOVE, AT THE SAME 

TIMES AS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED. ALL DEADLINES PER LOCAL RULE AND 

THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDERS SHOULD COMPLY WITH THESE NEW 

DATES. 

Dated: August 9, 2007 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00549-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 08/10/07 Page 5 of 5