Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00328-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
I. Barrimond
Defendant
J. Capriola
Defendant
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Zella Maye Freeman
Plaintiff
R. Garrison
Defendant
J. Hollins
Defendant
R. Perez
Defendant
A. Simonson
Defendant
Mark A. Yee
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 and Order Regarding 

 Extension to file Opposition and Reply to 

 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853

Erica M.Camarena, Esq. Bar No. 227981

THE LAW FIRM OF

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF,

ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, J. CAPRIOLA, I. BARRIMOND, 

J. HOLLINS, R. PEREZ, A. SIMONSON; CITY OF FRESNO, R. GARRISON,

M. YEE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZELLA MAYE FREEMAN, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, R. GARRISON (F.P.D.

Badge No. 780), MARK A. YEE (F.P.D.

Bade No. 692), J. CAPRIOLA (F.S.O. Badge

No. 7622), I. BARRIMOND (F.S.O Badge

No. 1153), J. HOLLINS (F.S.O. Badge No.

2346), R. PEREZ (F.S.O. Badge No. 6169),

A. SIMONSON (F.S.O. Badge No. 9364),

inclusive, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00328-OWW-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING 

EXTENSION OF DATES TO FILE

OPPOSITION, REPLY AND TO HEAR

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

FRCP 29; Local Rule 6-144(a)

Hearing Date: October 23, 2006

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 3

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger

Trial Date: October 24, 2006

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties that the following dates will

be extended: 

1. Plaintiff has requested a 21-day extension to file her Opposition to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment, which is currently due on August 28, 2006. 

This date will be extended and Plaintiff’s opposition is now due on September

18, 2006. 

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 70 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 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

____________________________

 Stipulation and Order Regarding 

 Extension to file Opposition and Reply to 

 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 2

2. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be extended

from September 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. to October 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

3. Defendants’ Reply will be due five court days prior to the hearing in accordance

with the Local Rules. 

4. The Parties further agree that due to the pending issues before the court within

the motion for summary judgment, a meaningful pre-trial conference cannot be

had. As such, the pre-trial conference currently set for September 11, 2006 at

11:00 a.m. will be vacated. 

5. The parties understand that if the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is heard on October 23, 2006, it will be highly unlikely that the trial

will begin on October 24, 2006 as scheduled. As such, new pre-trial and trial

dates will be discussed and rescheduled at the summary judgment hearing on

October 23, 2006. 

DATED: August 25, 2006 WEAKLEY, RATLIFF, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

By:__/s/ Erica M. Camarena 

Erica M. Camarena 

Attorney for Defendants

DATED: August 24, 2006 NUTALL & COLEMAN 

By: _/s/ Mark Coleman (as authorized on August 24, 2006)

Wesley E. Stupar

 Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 70 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2