James Koester, Esq. (SBN: 205826)

Roslyn Simmons, Esq. (SBN: 206588)

SIMMONS KOESTER & ASSOC.

3055 Wilshire Blvd., Twelfth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KATHLEEN BOHACEK, AN INDIVIDUAL

FOR ALEXANDER CARDENAS, A MINOR

Clifford F. Campbell, Esq. (SBN: 60734)

Alan M. Cohen, Esq. (SBN: 177662)

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

555 12th Street, Suite 1500

Oakland, California 94607

Telephone: (510) 808.2000

Facsimile: (510) 444.1108

Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF STOCKTON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHLEEN BOHACEK, AN

INDIVIDUAL, FOR ALEXANDER

JAMES CARDENAS, A MINOR

Plaintiffs

v.

CITY OF STOCKTON and DOES 1- 25,

inclusive

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: CIV S-04-0939 GGH

AMENDED STIPULATION FOR

EXTENDING TIME TO FILE

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSIVE BRIEF

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT and

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE and [Proposed] ORDER

[Local Rule 6-142]

DATE: May 19, 2005

TIME: 9:00a.m.

DEPT: Courtroom: 24

TRIAL: September 12, 2005

 INTRODUCTION

The Parties to this lawsuit hereby enter into the following stipulation to

grant the Plaintiffs:

An extension of time within which to file a brief in opposition to Defendant

City of Stockton’s Motion for Summary Judgment; 

Case 2:04-cv-00939-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 6
A continuance of the hearing of that Motion, currently scheduled for May

19, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.; and also 

To postpone the trial date and other associated deadlines in this action. 

Trial of this matter currently is scheduled for November 14, 2005.

RECITALS

1. On May 13, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Damages and

Injunctive Relief, alleging that the Defendant had violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act by refusing to afford the Plaintiff reasonable accommodations

and/or to allow him to participate in a City run program. On or about May 19,

2004, Defendant was properly served with process.

2. On June 30, 2004, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. 

Defendant was properly served via US mail.

3. Defendant filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint on or

about July 10, 2004.

4. On or about September 13, 2004, Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a

Joint Status Report.

5. On January 3, 2005, this Court established a Scheduling Order,

including a date for trial. Under that Order discovery was to be completed by

August 29, 2005, and motions to compel discovery were to be presented so that

they were heard no later than August 11, 2005. Trial was scheduled to commence

on November 14, 2005.

6. On or about February 27, 2005, Defendant deposed the Plaintiff,

Kathleen Bohacek.

7. On or about April 8, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment. That motion currently is scheduled to be heard on May 19, 2005, at

10:00 a.m. in this Court.

8. Plaintiffs’ counsel is out of the country and will continue to be out of

the country at the time of the currently-scheduled hearing date for the Motion for

Case 2:04-cv-00939-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 6
Summary Judgment. She traveled to France on May 12, 2005 and will not return

until on or about May 21, 2005. Additionally, she was out of the state on other

business from on or about April 21 through April 27, 2005. Given such

restrictions, she has had inadequate time within which to evaluate and prepare an

opposition to the Defendant’s motion. 

9. The Defendant is willing to stipulate to postpone the hearing of this

motion, but only if such a postponement does not serve to cause prejudice to its

position. The Defendant will be prejudiced by such a postponement, however,

unless the current trial date and all of its associated scheduling deadlines also are

postponed. Unless those other dates also are postponed any delay of the

Defendant’s summary judgment motion will require the Defendant to engage in

costly pre-trial preparation activities, and otherwise to prepare for trial, all

occasioned by the fact that its potentially terminating motion has been delayed,

and remains unresolved, while approaching pretrial discovery deadlines give the

Defendant no alternative but to complete its preparations for trial. 

10. The attorneys for the parties stipulate to a continuance to extend the

time within which the Plaintiffs will be able to file an Opposition Brief to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Parties request that the hearing of

this motion, currently scheduled for May 19, 2005, be postponed, and rescheduled

for July 21, 2005 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. The parties

specifically request that Plaintiffs be allowed to file their responsive brief on or

before June 20, 2005, and that Defendant be afforded until June 29, 2005 by which

to Reply.

11. Additionally, the Parties request a stipulated continuance of the

presently scheduled trial date of November 14, 2005; and that the trial be

rescheduled for June 19, 2006. And the parties agree that continuing the trial date

will afford the parties needed additional time to conduct further discovery that will

most likely narrow the potential issues at trial and save the parties unnecessary

Case 2:04-cv-00939-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/24/05 Page 3 of 6
expenses for potential experts if such issues can be further narrowed prior to trial.

STIPULATION

PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT HEREBY STIPULATE THROUGH

COUNSEL OF RECORD, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The hearing date of May 19, 2005, for Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment shall be continued to July 21, 2005 or as soon thereafter as the

matter may be heard; and Plaintiff may have until June 20, 2005, to file an

Opposition Brief to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant

thereafter may have until June 29, 2005, in which to Reply.

2. The presently scheduled trial date of November 14, 2005, shall be

continued and rescheduled to commence on June 19, 2006.

3. The case is to be heard by a jury. The length of trial is estimated to

be 5 days.

4. Discovery plan: Discovery shall be conducted in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, and incorporating the

procedures articulated in the Court’s original scheduling order of January 3, 2005.

5. Discovery cut off date, now set for August 29, 2005, shall be reset to

April 3, 2006. Motions to compel discovery shall be noticed in accordance with

the Local Rules of the Court so that such motions will be heard no later than

March 16, 2006.

6. Designation of expert witnesses shall conform to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(2). All parties shall designate their experts as follows:

a. Plaintiffs: No later than February 2, 2006.

b. Defendant: No later than February 17, 2006.

7. Dispositive motions shall be noticed for a hearing date which is not

later than May 8, 2006.

8. A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial

Conference.

Case 2:04-cv-00939-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/24/05 Page 4 of 6
9. A Pretrial Conference (as described in Local Rule 16-282) now

scheduled for October 31, 2005, shall be reset for June 5, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. 

Dated: May 17, 2005 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 

 

By__________/s/___________________________ 

Clifford F. Campbell 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF STOCKTON

Dated: May 17, 2005 SIMMONS & KOESTER

 

 

By__________/s/___________________________ 

James Koester 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KATHLEEN BOHACEK and

ALEXANDER CARDENAS

ORDER

 Good cause having been shown, it is so ordered. 

Dated: May 24, 2005

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_____________________________

Honorable Gregory G. Hollows 

U.S. Magistrate Judge

bohacek939.ord05

756536_1

Case 2:04-cv-00939-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/24/05 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-00939-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/24/05 Page 6 of 6