Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01999/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01999-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Merced
Defendant
Officer Pinnegar
Defendant
Gregory Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

PARTIES JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-OWW-MJS 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

26

27

28

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. CSB#69888 DAVID E. DRIVON, ESQ. #158369 

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS LAW OFFICE OF DAVID DRIVON 

Airport Corporate Centre 215 N. San Joaquin Street 

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Stockton, CA 95202 

Oakland, CA 94621-1939 Tel: (209) 942-3276 

Tel: (510) 839-5200 Fax: (209) 463-7668 

Fax: (510) 839-3882 E/M: Ddrivon@ Comcast.net

E/M: John.Burris@JohnBurrisLaw.com

Attorneys for Gregory Williams 

DALE L. ALLEN, JR., SBN 145279 

KEVIN P. ALLEN, SBN 252290 

LOW, BALL & LYNCH 

505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: (415)981-6630 

Fax: (415) 982-1634 

E/M: dallen@lowball.com

E/M: kallen@lowball.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(FRESNO)

GREGORY WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

vs

CITY OF MERCED; a municipal 

corporation; Merced police Officer 

PINNEGAR (ID#215) individually and in 

his official capacity as a police officer for 

the CITY OF MERCED; and DOES 1 

through 15, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-MJS 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND 

TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ 

REPLY BRIEF AND THE HEARING DATE 

Honorable Michael J. Seng 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 4
PARTIES JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-OWW-MJS 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

 The parties, Plaintiff Gregory Williams, and Defendants City of Merced, Officers 

Pinnegar, et al., by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate that the time for filing 

all remaining documents and noticed hearing in this matter be extended by one week, i.e.: 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment from December 28, 

2012 to January 4, 2013; Defendants’ Reply Brief from January 4, 2013 to January 11, 

2013, and the hearing in this matter from January 11, 2013 to January 18, 2013. 

1. This action arises out of an encounter between Plaintiff Gregory Williams 

and Defendant City of Merced Police Officers, including Defendant Officer Pinnegar, in 

Plaintiff’s home on September 9, 2009, from which Plaintiff suffered injuries and was 

ultimately arrested. 

2. Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights on 

October 21, 2010. 

3. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 14, 2012. 

4. According to the Court’s scheduling order, Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due on December 28, 2012; Defendant’s 

Reply is due on January 4, 2013, and the hearing is noticed for January 11, 2013. 

5. Due to the Plaintiff’s counsels’ heavy caseload, holiday schedule and 

holiday travel plans, Plaintiff needs additional time in which to prepare Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Because extending time to file 

Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief implicates all other deadlines in this matter, the parties request 

that all remaining deadlines and the hearing date regarding Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment be extended by one week, as follows: Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 4
PARTIES JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-OWW-MJS 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

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment due on January 4, 2013; Defendants’ Reply 

due on January 11, 2013, and the hearing be held on January 18, 2013. 

6. To date, no previous time modifications have been made in this case by 

stipulation or by Court order. 

7. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff and the 

Defendants, through their respective counsel, that the time to file the remaining briefs in 

this matter and the scheduled hearing date be extended by one week, as follows: Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment from December 28, 2012 to 

January 4, 2013, Defendants’ Reply from January 4, 2013 to January 11, 2013, and the 

scheduled hearing from January 11, 2013, to January 18, 2013. 

Dated: December 19, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 

 By:_/s/ Adante Pointer_ 

 Adanté Pointer, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: December 19, 2012 LOW, BALL & LYNCH 

 By:__Kevin Allen_____________ 

 Kevin P. Allen 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is so Ordered and the January 11, 2013 Hearing is continued to 

January 18, 2013. 

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng

 U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 4
PARTIES JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Case 1:10-cv-01999-OWW-MJS 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

Case 1:10-cv-01999-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 4