Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Temujin Bustos
Plaintiff
City of Fresno
Defendant
Jerry Dyer
Defendant
Andrew Hall
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Stipulation

Douglas T. Sloan, City Attorney (State Bar #194996)

Francine M. Kanne, Chief Assistant City Attorney (State Bar 139028)

CITY OF FRESNO

2600 Fresno Street, Room 2031

Fresno, California 93721-3602

BETTS & RUBIN, A Professional Corporation

907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 438-8500

Facsimile: (559) 438-6959

James B. Betts (State Bar #110222)

Joseph D. Rubin (State Bar #149920)

Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER, ANDREW HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEMUJIN BUSTOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, a Public Entity; CHIEF 

OF POLICE JERRY P. DYER, individually 

and in his capacity as Chief of the Fresno 

Police Department; CHIEF OF POLICE 

ANDREW HALL, individually and in his 

capacity as Chief of the Fresno Police 

Department; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

 Defendants ______________________________________

)

)

)

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-00066-DAD-BAM

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION RE: 

SERVICE AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Case 1:20-cv-00066-ADA-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 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 Stipulation

− 2 −

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, through 

their respective counsel of record, as follows:

1. Defendants City of Fresno, Andrew Hall and Jerry Dyer were served on

different dates. Betts & Rubin has been retained to represent all three Defendants. 

2. Counsel for the parties previously agreed upon a date to file a responsive pleading

for all three Defendants - - March 16, 2020.

3. Given that the Court’s docket reflects different dates for responsive pleadings to

be filed (Document Nos. 6-8), the parties desire to clarify the issue for the Court.

Respectfully requested,

Dated: March 2, 2020 BETTS & RUBIN

By /s/ Joseph D. Rubin 

Joseph D. Rubin

Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF FRESNO

Dated: March 2, 2020 CASTILLO HARPER, APC

By /s/ Joseph N. Bolander Joseph N. Bolander

Attorneys for Plaintiff Temujin Bustos

Case 1:20-cv-00066-ADA-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 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 Stipulation

− 3 −

ORDER

Local Rule 144(a) provides that “an initial stipulation extending time for no more than 

twenty-eight (28) days to respond to a complaint . . . may be filed without approval of the Court 

if the stipulation is signed on behalf of all parties who have appeared in the action and are 

affected by the stipulation.” Stipulations extending time to respond to a complaint or 

counterclaim for more than twenty-eight (28) days must be approved by the Court. L.R. 144(a). 

Counsel is required to seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court as soon as the need 

for an extension becomes apparent. Id. at 144(d). “Requests for Court-approved extensions 

brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with 

disfavor.” Id. Furthermore, “[s]tipulations for an order shortening time require the approval of 

[a] Judge or Magistrate Judge . . . before such stipulations are given effect.” Id. at 144(e).

Here, according to the waiver of service and proofs of service filed by Plaintiff, 

Defendant Jerry Dyer’s response to the complaint is due April 6, 2020, Defendant Andrew Hall’s 

response to the complaint is due March 2, 2020, and Defendant City of Fresno’s response to the 

complaint was due February 12, 2020. (See Doc. Nos. 6-8.) The stipulation, which was filed 

on February 28, 2020, represents that the parties “previously agreed” that all Defendants would 

file a responsive pleading on or before March 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 9) Accordingly, the 

parties’ stipulation is construed as a request to shorten the deadline for Defendant Jerry Dyer’s 

response to the complaint, to extend the deadline for Defendant Andrew Hall’s response to the 

complaint for less than twenty-eight (28) days, and to extend the deadline for Defendant City of 

Fresno’s response to the complaint for thirty-three (33) days.

As to Defendant Andrew Hall, the parties' stipulation conforms with the requirements of 

Local Rule 144(a) and therefore requires no court order to be effective. 

As to Defendant Jerry Dyer, the stipulation states that the parties previously agreed to 

shorten the deadline for a response to the complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 144(e), 

stipulations seeking to shorten time must be approved by the Court. Likewise, the parties seek 

Case 1:20-cv-00066-ADA-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 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 Stipulation

− 4 −

to extend the deadline for Defendant City of Fresno’s response to the complaint for more than 

twenty-eight (28) days and therefore Court approval is required. L.R. 144(a). However, the 

parties filed their stipulation for an extension of time sixteen days after the deadline for 

Defendant City of Fresno’s responsive pleading. (Doc. No. 9.) Nonetheless, based upon the 

parties’ consent to the amended deadlines, and in the interest of justice, the Court finds that the 

parties’ request is warranted and no prejudice will result. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jerry Dyer and Defendant City 

of Fresno’s responses to the complaint shall be filed and served on or before March 16, 2020.

The Court recognizes the parties' stipulation extending the deadline for Defendant Andrew Hall 

to respond to the complaint to March 16, 2020, but no further order is required. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00066-ADA-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 4