Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00607/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00607-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

29

30

31

PAVONE & 

FONNER, LLP | AFFELD 

GRIVAKES 

ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & 

SCHALENDEBRAND

 

 OFFICES OF

 ═════════

PAVONE & FONNER

 ═════════

 A LAW PARTNERSHIP

BENJAMIN PAVONE, ESQ., SBN 181826

7676 HAZARD CENTER DRIVE, 5TH FLOOR

 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108

TELEPHONE: 619 224 8885

FACSIMILE: 619 224 8886

PAVONE EMAIL: bpavone@cox.net

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD 

CROLEY MAIER LLP

MARTIN H. DODD (104363)

JAMIE L. DUPREE (158105)

JAIME G. TOUCHSTONE (233187)

180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 399-3840

Facsimile: (415) 399-3838

mdodd@fddcm.com

jdupree@fddcm.com

jtouchstone@fddcm.com

Attorneys for Defendant J. Clark Kelso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

 

 

Case No. 1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB

Related Cases: 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

STIPULATION FOR ORDER AND 

EXTENDING TIME BY WHICH 

DEFENDANT J. CLARK KELSO 

MUST RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

ALTAMIRANO, MARLON, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

FORMER GOVERNER OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

DEFENDANTS.

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 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

29

30

31

PAVONE & 

FONNER, LLP | AFFELD 

GRIVAKES 

ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & 

SCHALENDEBRAND

Plaintiffs Marlon Altamirano, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant J. Clark Kelso 

(“Defendant Kelso”), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:

1. Pursuant to a previous stipulation of the parties, Defendant Kelso must 

respond to the complaint on file herein by no later than July 13, 2015.

2. Defendant Kelso anticipates bringing a motion or motions to dismiss the 

complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if this action proceeds. 

As a result, on June 9, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation for an order establishing a 

briefing schedule for the anticipated motion to dismiss to be filed by Defendant Kelso and 

which is on file herein as Dkt. No. 11. 

3. On May 20, 2015, in Smith et al. v. Schwarzenegger et al., 1:14-cv-00060-

LJO-SAB (“Smith”), the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) 

granting the motion to dismiss on the basis of Qualified Immunity brought by the 

defendants who had appeared in that action (Dkt. No. 164 in Smith). If the accuracy of the 

F&R’s application of the Qualified Immunity analysis is upheld by the District Judge, the 

Smith action might be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ objections to the F&R in Smith are currently 

due to be filed on June 24, 2015. 

4. The operative facts and many of the legal issues in Smith are substantially the 

same as the facts and legal issues in this case. Plaintiffs and Defendant Kelso agree, 

therefore, that, without waiving any claims or defenses they may assert, the outcome in 

Smith is likely to have a significant effect at the trial level in connection with the claims 

against Kelso in this action, at this level. 

5. Accordingly, to conserve party and judicial resources, Plaintiffs and 

Defendant Kelso hereby stipulate to an order vacating the May 27, 2015 stipulation with 

respect to the briefing schedule filed as Dkt. No. 11. Instead, Plaintiffs and Defendant 

Kelso stipulate to an order permitting Kelso an extension of time to appear in this action 

pending the outcome of a ruling on the objections to the F&R by the District Judge in 

Smith. Following the district judge’s ruling, the parties anticipate proceeding, as follows:

(a) if the district judge sustains the objections to the F&R, the parties will 

submit a further stipulation for an order re-establishing a schedule for 

Case 1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 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

29

30

31

PAVONE & 

FONNER, LLP | AFFELD 

GRIVAKES 

ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & 

SCHALENDEBRAND

Defendant Kelso’s appearance in this action, including a briefing 

schedule for any motion to dismiss that Defendant Kelso may wish to 

bring, no later than 30 days after the ruling;

(b) If the district judge overrules the objections, Plaintiffs will present a 

stipulation for the case against Kelso to be folded into a larger appeal 

of the Qualified Immunity ruling.

So stipulated.

Dated: June 17, 2015 FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD 

CROLEY MAIER LLP

By: /s/Martin H. Dodd

Martin H. Dodd

Attorneys for Defendant J. Clark Kelso

Dated: June 17, 2015 PAVONE & FONNER, LLP

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 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

29

30

31

PAVONE & 

FONNER, LLP | AFFELD 

GRIVAKES 

ZUCKER LLP | BURNS & 

SCHALENDEBRAND

ORDER

Based on the Stipulation of the parties as set forth above, and good cause having 

been shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the May 27, 2015 stipulation for Defendant 

Kelso’s briefing schedule on his motion(s) to dismiss filed herein as Dkt. No. 11 shall be 

vacated. Defendant Kelso shall have an extension of time to file a responsive pleading in 

this action at this time pending the determination by this Court in Smith, et al. v. 

Schwarzenegger, et al., 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB (“Smith”) with respect to the ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations of May 20, 2015, 

Dkt. No. 164, not later than 30 days after the ruling.

Case 1:15-cv-00607-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 4