Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04196/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04196-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dale Billiter
Defendant
City of Hayward
Defendant
County of Alameda
Defendant
Mike Edwards
Defendant
Danielle Pollar
Plaintiff
Shalawn Pollar
Plaintiff
Sam Sander
Defendant
Mary Takeuchi
Defendant
Michael Yee
Defendant

Document Text:

Stipulation and Order 

Pollar v. County of Alameda, et al. 

(Case No. 08-04196 BZ)

1

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

ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ. CSB#159747 

DENNIS R. INGOLS, ESQ. CSB#236458 

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. POWELL

925 West Hedding Street 

San José, California 95126 

T: 408-553-0200 F: 408-553-0203 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DANIELLE POLLAR, SHALAWN POLLAR 

as Guardian Ad Litem for J.A., a minor 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIELLE POLLAR, SHALAWN ) Case No. 08-04196 BZ 

POLLAR as Guardian Ad Litem for J.A., ) 

a minor, ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

vs. ) ORDER RE: INCREASED PAGE 

 ) LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ 

 ) OPPOSITION TO COUNTY 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

Mary Takeuchi, Dale Billiter, Michael Yee ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

CITY OF HAYWARD, Sam Sander, ) 

Mike Edwards, and ) 

 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

_____ ) 

The parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree 

as set forth below and request this court order same: 

1. Plaintiffs may file a brief up to 29 pages in Opposition to the County Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed and currently pending. 

2. County Defendants may file a Reply brief up to 4 pages longer than the default limit as 

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 90 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2
Stipulation and Order 

Pollar v. County of Alameda, et al. 

(Case No. 08-04196 BZ)

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

 provided for by the Local Rules.1

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: 2/22/10 ___/S/ Robert R. Powell_______ 

 ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ. 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Dated: 2/22/10 __ /S/ Rebecca Widen_________ 

 REBECCA WIDEN, ESQ. 

 Attorney for County of Alameda, and 

 Individually Named Defendant 

 Employees of the County of Alameda 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Based on the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, the 

Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties and orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs may file a brief up to 29 pages in Opposition to the County Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed and currently pending. 

2. County Defendants may file a Reply brief up to 4 pages longer than the default limit as 

 provided for by the Local Rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 2/____/2010 _______________________________ 

 JUDGE BERNARD ZIMMERMAN 

 U.S.D.C NORTHERN DISTRICT 

 CALIFORNIA – San Francisco 

 

 

1 City Defendants’ counsel, Patrick Co, was contacted by e-mail regarding this stipulation, mostly for posterity 

sake, as the requested relief does not effect his clients. He did not respond, so the stipulation was filed without 

his approval. Plaintiffs’ counsel apologizes if the court disagrees with this approach. 

23

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 90 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2