United States District Court, Central District of California
Opinions and Orders of Previous Years

Subject: Case Number:Title:Date Posted:
Opinions and Orders of Previous Years CV 99-11629-GAF (AJWX),
Rampart Cases 		Javier F. Ovando v. City of Los Angeles, et al. - Civil Minutes02/06/2001


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Javier F. Ovando,
Plaintiff,

v.

City of Los Angeles, et al.
Defendant.
___________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 99-11629-GAF (AJWX)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

The Honorable Gary Allen Feess, Judge

Marilynn Morris
Courtroom Deputy Clerk
None Present
Court Reporter


ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None Present


ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (In Chambers)

The Court previously stayed all proceedings in this case, including discovery, to address certain case management issues. The Court now partially lifts that stay to permit any defendant claiming absolute immunity from liability for damages and/or injunctive relief to move to dismiss on that ground according to the following schedule:

All motions directed to this issue must be filed by Monday, February 26, 2001. Oppositions to such motions shall be filed no later than Monday, March 12, 2001. Defendants may file Reply briefs on or before Monday, March 19, 2001. The Court will hear argument on any such motions on Monday, March 26, 2001 at 9:30 A.M.

The Court further orders that any defendant — other than police officer defendants of any rank — who claims qualified immunity from suit must present that issue to the Court by way of a motion to dismiss on the following schedule: any such motion shall be filed no later than Monday, March 5, 2001; the opposition to such motions shall be filed no later than Monday, March 19, 2001; reply briefs are to be filed no later than Monday March 26, 2001. The Court will hear argument on any such motions on Monday, April 2, 2001, at 9:30 A.M.

This order partially lifts the stay in place in this case to permit the filing of the motions described above. This order is permissive only; no defendant is required to file any motion.

Parties choosing to file such motions are relieved of any obligation to comply with Local Rules 7.4.1 and 7.14. No other case-related activities may proceed at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


Javier F. Ovando, Plaintiff,
v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Defendant. ) Case No. CV 99-11629-GAF (AJWX) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL


The Honorable Gary Allen Feess, Judge


Marilynn Morris
Courtroom Deputy Clerk None Present
Court Reporter


ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None Present


ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None Present


PROCEEDINGS: (In Chambers)

The Court previously stayed all proceedings in this case, including discovery, to address certain case management issues. The Court now partially lifts that stay to permit any defendant claiming absolute immunity from liability for damages and/or injunctive relief to move to dismiss on that ground according to the following schedule:
All motions directed to this issue must be filed by Monday, February 26, 2001. Oppositions to such motions shall be filed no later than Monday, March 12, 2001. Defendants may file Reply briefs on or before Monday, March 19, 2001. The Court will hear argument on any such motions on Monday, March 26, 2001 at 9:30 A.M.
The Court further orders that any defendant — other than police officer defendants of any rank — who claims qualified immunity from suit must present that issue to the Court by way of a motion to dismiss on the following schedule: any such motion shall be filed no later than Monday, March 5, 2001; the opposition to such motions shall be filed no later than Monday, March 19, 2001; reply briefs are to be filed no later than Monday March 26, 2001. The Court will hear argument on any such motions on Monday, April 2, 2001, at 9:30 A.M.
This order partially lifts the stay in place in this case to permit the filing of the motions described above. This order is permissive only; no defendant is required to file any motion.
Parties choosing to file such motions are relieved of any obligation to comply with Local Rules 7.4.1 and 7.14. No other case-related activities may proceed at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.