Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02653/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02653-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Alexandrou
Plaintiff
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Richard Maddox
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MADDOX, a natural person; ) 

KAREN ALEXANDROU, a natural )

person; TIEN HONG VO, a natural )

person; THONG VO, a natural person;)

NGAU THI NGUYEN, a natural person; )

and SONIA LUONG, a natural person, )

) 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-PAN(JFM)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a local ) CONFERENCE

government agency; COMMUNITY )

PROSECUTION UNIT, a local )

government agency; JAN SCULLY, a )

natural person and the District )

Attorney for Sacramento County; )

CYNTHIA BESEMER, a natural person )

and Chief Deputy District Attorney )

for Sacramento County; KAREN )

MAXWELL, a natural person and )

Deputy District Attorney for )

Sacramento County; NATALIA LUNA, )

a natural person and Deputy )

District Attorney for Sacramento )

County; WILLIAM MOTMANS, a natural )

person and an investigator )

employed by the District Attorney )

for Sacramento County; and JAMES )

COOPER, a natural person and a )

captain of the Sacramento County )

Sheriff’s Department, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled in

this action for June 19, 2006, is continued to September 25, 2006,

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 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

2

since the parties’ “Joint Status Report” (“JSR”) filed June 1, 2006,

does not reflect the participation of all named Defendants. The JSR

states “Defendant County of Sacramento has been served and has

appeared on April 3, 2006. The remaining Defendants were served . . .

and filed answers to the complaint . . . on May 3, 2006.” (JSR at 2.) 

However, the court docket reveals that Defendant Community Prosecution

Unit did not file an answer on May 3, and as of when this Order was

filed, had not yet filed an answer to the Complaint. In addition,

defense counsel signed the JSR as “Attorney for Defendant County of

Sacramento.” Thus, Defendant County of Sacramento appears to have

been the only Defendant that participated in crafting the JSR. It is

unclear why other Defendants failed to give input in the “JSR.”

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the 

January 12, 2006, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Conference (“January 12 Order”), the parties shall file an amended JSR

no later than September 11, 2006, that accurately reflects the

participation of all the parties or explains a party’s absence. The

January 12 Order obligated the parties to provide such an explanation. 

As the Order states: 

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in

the preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse

the other parties from their obligation to timely file a

status report in accordance with this Order. In the event a

party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely

submitting the status report shall include a declaration

explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of

the other party or parties. 

(January 12 Order at 2 n. 1.) Further, the JSR shall include a date

on which the parties desire to have motions for class certification

heard, and Plaintiffs are required to explain in the JSR how the

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 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

3

action will be prosecuted against a non-responding party, assuming

that is the status of the matter when the JSR is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 9, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 3