Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

1

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

00510977.WPD

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99180

Kristina M. Hall, SBN 196794

350 University Ave., Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

STANISLAUS COUNTY COUNSEL

Michael H. Krausnick

W. Dean Wright

County Administration Building

1010 10 Street, Suite 6400 th

Modesto, CA 95354

TEL: 209.525.6376

FAX. 209. 525.4473

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and STANISLAUS COUNTY

SHERIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, SOUTH

UNITED NEIGHBORS, DAVID CARO,

M A N U EL ESPIN O , H O RTEN CIA

FRANCO, LUPE HUESCA, FLORINDA

LAUREANO, ENA LOPEZ, BLANCA

MARTINEZ, GRISELDA MARTINEZ,

SALVADOR GUTIERREZ MARTINEZ,

JAZMIN MERCADO, JUAN MERCADO,

MAGDALENA MERCADO, JUAN PEREZ,

GLORIA PIMENTEL, ALFONSO RIVERA,

DARREN SCHAEFFER, AND ELVIRA

VILLALOBOS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF MODESTO, COUNTY OF

STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY

SHERIFF, STANISLAUS REGIONAL 911,

and the following individuals in their official

capacities: LES WEIDM AN, JIM

RIDENOUR, JANICE KEATING, BOB

DUNBAR, DENNY JACKMAN, GARRAD

MARSH, WILL O’BRYANT, PAUL

Case No.: CIV-F 04-6121 LJO DLB

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN

SUPPORT THEREOF TO EXTEND

PAGE LIMIT FOR DEFENDANT

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS’ REPLY

TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

S UMM A R Y A D J U D I C A T I O N

REGARDING SEWERS, CURBS,

GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM

DRAINS, AND TITLE VI CLAIMS IN

RELATION THERETO; [PROPOSED]

O R D E R R E G A R D I N G P A G E

EXTENSION

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 381 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

00510977.WPD

C AR USO , JEFF GROVER , TO M

MAYFIELD, PAT PAUL, AND RAY

SIMON,

Defendants.

 /

Defendant COUNTY OF STANISLAUS (“Defendant”) hereby submits this Ex Parte

Application for permission to file a Reply to the Opposition to Defendant’s Memorandum

of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication Regarding

Sewers, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Storm Drainage, and Title VI claims related thereto in

excess of the ten-page limit set by the stipulation of the parties and as contained in the

Court’s Standing Orders. 

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

I, Terence J. Cassidy, declare:

1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice in and before all of the courts of

the State of California and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California, and am a shareholder with the Professional Corporation of Porter Scott, A

Professional Corporation, Attorneys of Record for Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

and STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF in the above-captioned matter.

2. Pursuant to the Court’s direction, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a

stipulation approved by the Court regarding briefing schedules and page limitations for

Defendants’ multiple motions for summary adjudication. In that stipulation, the parties

agreed that each Motion and Opposition thereto would be limited to twenty-five pages, with

Defendants’ Reply to each not to exceed ten pages. The parties agreed to an exception for

the third motion pertaining to infrastructure, as the factual history would be lengthy.

Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulated to a fifty-page limit on the Motion and the Opposition.

A proportional increase in the page limitation for the Reply to the Opposition to the third

Motion was inadvertently omitted. 

//

3. On May 22, 2007, Defendant filed its fifty-page motion for summary

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 381 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

00510977.WPD

adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause

regarding provision of sewer, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drainage, as well as

Plaintiffs’ Title VI claim regarding the funding of each type of municipal infrastructure. The

Motion raised issues such as legal standards, burdens of proof for Plaintiffs’ claims,

applicability of Title VI, statute of limitations, demographics, standing, and so forth. 

4. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion on June 12, 2007. The

Opposition is forty-four pages long. 

5. Defendant has in good faith attempted to respond to the Opposition in the

stipulated ten pages, but it has become apparent that it is impossible to properly address all

the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Opposition within the ten-page limitation. Rather, appropriate

discussion of each issue raised requires significant legal analysis and application to a lengthy

factual history. It is my intention to prepare a Reply that is as streamlined and direct as

possible. However, it is necessary that Defendant submit sufficient evidence to rebut any

contention that purported discrimination was related to any intentional animus against

Latinos. 

6. On Monday, June 18, 2007, I contacted counsel for Plaintiffs, Brian P.

Brosnahan, by e-mail to seek a stipulation to extend the page limit by ten pages, meaning that

the Reply would not exceed twenty pages. 

7. On Tuesday, June 19, 2007, Mr. Brosnahan responded by e-mail and stated that

Plaintiffs have no objection to Defendant seeking ten additional pages to prepare its Reply,

for a page limit not to exceed twenty pages total. A true and correct copy of the e-mail

correspondence requesting the page extension and Mr. Brosnahan’s response to that request

is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct, and if called to testify as a witness in this matter I can and

will testify competently as to the matters of fact contained herein based upon my personal

knowledge.

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2007, at Sacramento, California.

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 381 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT OF 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

00510977.WPD

By /s/ Terence J. Cassidy 

Terence J. Cassidy

Attorney for Defendants

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF

ORDER

This Ex Parte Application for permission to file a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary

Adjudication Regarding Sewers, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks and Storms Drainage, and Title

VI issues related thereto was filed by Defendant COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and was

entertained on an ex parte basis. The Court has reviewed the motion and found good cause

to grant Defendant’s request for a page extension. Therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant COUNTY OF STANISLAUS shall be

permitted to file a Reply to the Opposition designated above not to exceed twenty pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 381 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 4