Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02730/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02730-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

Stipulation Requesting Entry of Order (1) Extending U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Time for Defendant McCullough to Answer, et al. 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

Anne L. Keck, State Bar No. 136315 

KECK LAW OFFICES 

418 B Street, Suite 206 

Santa Rosa, California 95401 

Telephone: (707) 595-4185 

Facsimile: (707) 657-7715 

Email: akeck@public-law.org 

Attorneys for Defendant Former 

Tehama County Sheriff’s Deputy 

ED MCCULLOUGH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DREW GARDNER,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

STIPULATION REQUESTING ENTRY 

OF ORDER (1) EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT MCCULLOUGH TO 

ANSWER THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, AND (2) EXTENDING 

TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL; 

ORDER 

 This stipulation and request for entry of order is entered into by and between Plaintiff 

Drew Gardner (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Ed McCullough, formerly a Tehama County Sheriff’s 

Deputy (“Deputy McCullough”), for two purposes. First, the parties request the Court to extend the 

time in which Deputy McCullough must file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint herein, 

through and including December 14, 2015. Second, the parties request the Court to extend the time 

in which Deputy McCullough may file a notice of appeal regarding the Court’s denial of his 

qualified immunity defense in connection with his motion to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. No. 45), 

and the Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration on that issue (Dkt. No. 70), through and 

including December 14, 2015. The parties submit that good cause supports this stipulation and 

request for entry of an order, as set forth below. 

RECITALS 

 A. Plaintiff initially filed his complaint in this action in the Tehama County Superior 

Court on October 17, 2014. It was removed to this Court through a Notice of Removal filed by 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 78 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 5
Stipulation Requesting Entry of Order (1) Extending U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Time for Defendant McCullough to Answer, et al. 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

Defendants the California Highway Patrol and CHP Officer Newman on November 19, 2014. 

 B. On April 30, 2015, Deputy McCullough and the County of Tehama filed a motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on various grounds. On July 20, 2015, the Court 

resolved that motion in its “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part State Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss and Granting in Part and Denying in Part County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,” Docket 

No. 45 (the “Dismissal Order”). In the Dismissal Order, the Court dismissed all claims against 

Deputy McCullough save one: the Court determined that the allegations in the complaint did not 

warrant granting Deputy McCullough qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 

substantive due process claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). 

 C. On August 17, 2015, Deputy McCullough filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s 

denial of his qualified immunity defense on Plaintiff’s remaining §1983 claim against him, and 

concurrently filed an alternative motion for summary judgment based on the qualified immunity 

defense. (Dkt. Nos. 47, 58.) In its minute order entered on October 14, 2015, the Court denied the 

motion to reconsider. (Dkt. No. 70, the “Reconsideration Order.”) In two separate minute orders, 

the Court took Deputy McCullough’s alternative motion for summary judgment under submission 

(Dkt. Nos. 66, 70), and it remains under submission at the time of this stipulation. 

 D. In light of the Court’s Reconsideration Order, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 12(a)(4)(A), Deputy McCullough’s answer to the Third Amended 

Complaint is due to be filed on or before October 28, 2015 (i.e., 14 days after notice of Court action 

denying a motion to dismiss). 

 E. In addition, federal law provides Deputy McCullough with a right to immediately file 

an interlocutory appeal regarding the Court’s denial of his qualified immunity defense in its 

Dismissal Order and Reconsideration Order. See Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 350 (2006). Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) Rules 4(a)(1)(A) and 4(a)(4)(A) provide that any such 

appeal must be filed no later than 30 days after entry of the order disposing of the last remaining 

motion on the issue. In this case, because the Reconsideration Order was entered on October 14, 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 78 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 5
Stipulation Requesting Entry of Order (1) Extending U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Time for Defendant McCullough to Answer, et al. 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

2015, the time to file a notice of appeal on that order and the Dismissal Order expires on November 

13, 2015. 

 F. District Courts are authorized to extend the 30-day time period for filing a notice of 

appeal for “good cause” under FRAP 4(a)(5). Pursuant to such rule, District Courts cannot extend 

that time period for longer than 30 days or 14 days after entry of the extension order, whichever is 

longer. FRAP 4(a)(5)(C). 

 G. The parties have agreed that there is good cause to extend the time period in which 

Deputy McCullough must file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint as well as the time period 

in which he may file a notice of appeal regarding the Dismissal Order and Reconsideration Order, 

based on the following reasons presented by Deputy McCullough: 

 1. Deputy McCullough would like to preserve his right to file an interlocutory 

appeal on the denial of qualified immunity in the Dismissal Order/Reconsideration Order pending 

the Court’s decision on his summary judgment motion, which right would be waived if he were to 

file an answer; 

 2. If the Court grants Deputy McCullough’s motion for summary judgment 

based on qualified immunity, any appeal of the Dismissal Order/Reconsideration Order becomes 

moot; 

 3. If the Court denies Deputy McCullough’s motion for summary judgment 

based on his qualified immunity defense, it would be most expeditious to combine any appeal on 

that issue with the same issue addressed in the Dismissal Order/Reconsideration Order; and 

 4. Any appeal of the Dismissal Order/Reconsideration Order would result in an 

automatic stay of all trial court proceedings against him, which would prevent this Court from 

resolving Deputy McCullough’s pending motion for summary judgment. See e.g., City of Los 

Angeles v. Santa Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) (The filing of an 

interlocutory appeal “divests the district court of jurisdiction over the particular issues involved in 

that appeal.”). 

 H. Accordingly, to preserve Deputy McCullough’s right to appeal the Dismissal 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 78 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 5
Stipulation Requesting Entry of Order (1) Extending U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Time for Defendant McCullough to Answer, et al. 4 

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

Order/Reconsideration Order pending this Court’s decision on his motion for summary judgment, 

the parties believe that extending the time for the Deputy to file his answer and to appeal those 

orders is warranted. 

 WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as 

follows: 

STIPULATION 

 1. The parties to this stipulation request entry of an order extending the time period in 

which Deputy McCullough must file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint through and 

including December 14, 2015, pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(a)(4) and 15(a)(3); 

 2. The parties to this stipulation request entry of an order extending the time period in 

which Deputy McCullough may file a notice of appeal of the denial of his qualified immunity 

defense in the Dismissal Order and Reconsideration Order through and including December 14, 

2015, pursuant to FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). 

 3. Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other 

matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the 

parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or 

otherwise. 

 WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation, through their respective counsel of record, 

hereby agree and request entry of an order as set out above. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 Keck Law Offices 

Dated: October 23, 2015 By: /s/ Anne L. Keck

 Anne L. Keck 

 Attorneys for County Defendants 

 Berg & Associates 

Dated: October 23, 2015 By: /s/ Ryan Birss (as authorized on 10/23/15) 

 Ryan Birss 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 78 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 5
Stipulation Requesting Entry of Order (1) Extending U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02730-JAM-CMK 

Time for Defendant McCullough to Answer, et al. 5 

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

ORDER 

 Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The time period in which Deputy McCullough must file an answer to the Third 

Amended Complaint is extended through and including December 14, 2015, pursuant to FRCP 

Rules 12(a)(4) and 15(a)(3); 

 2. The time period in which Deputy McCullough may file a notice of appeal of the 

denial of his qualified immunity defense in the Dismissal Order (Dkt. No. 45) and Reconsideration 

Order (Dkt. No. 70) is extended through and including December 14, 2015, pursuant to FRAP Rule 

4(a)(5). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 10/27/2015 /s/ John A. Mendez______________ 

 HONORABLE JOHN A MENDEZ 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 78 Filed 10/28/15 Page 5 of 5