VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 2 CATEGORY: Federal Court POSTED ON: 8/13/2009
David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 20 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 ILAW OFFICES OF M..<\RK A. WASSER 2 '400 Dpitol Mal~ Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 i Phone: (916) 444-6400 , Fax: (916) 444-6405 1 4 5 6 7 i E-mail: mwasserrii!markwasser.com Bernard C, Bannan, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fa'C: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: email@example.com II 9 I Attorneys for Defendants County ofKem, II I I Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, and William Roy I Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith 12 13 ]4 ]5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ]6 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-26 ) 17 19 20 ' VS. Plaimiff, ] 8 I) COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., ) ) ) ) ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants, ) 11------------) ) ORDER STIPULATION REi SERVICE AND RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCHEDUUG OF RULE I 26(1) CONFERENCE AND MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel as fo Hows: 1. There are multiple Defendants in this action and they were not all served on the same date but they were all served by April 6,2007 Given the varying service dates, the parties agree that all the Defendants may file an answer to the First Amended Complaint on or before April 30, 2007. Plaintiff shall not be prejudiced with respect to the scheduling of discovery or trial. //1 STiPULATION RE: SERVICE AND RESPONSE TO fIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCHEDULING OF RULE 26(1) CONFERENCE AND MANDATORY SCHEDULD<G CONFERENCE AND ORDER 1 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 20 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 2. Plaintiff may supplement his First Amended Complaint by adding factual allegations regarding a letter from the California Labor Commissioner and some other matters. The supplement will be filed on or before April 24, 2007. 3. The parties will conduct the Rule 26(f) Conference on May 4,2007 at a mutually agreeable time and location. 4. In order that the parties have sufficient time to prepare effective initial disclosures and a disoovery plan, the parties request that the Court re-schedule the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to May 31, 2007. 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Dated, April.J.L.., 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK. A. WASSER III ]2 13 14 15 Dated: April 11 ,2007 Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al. LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 16 ]7 18 By:._ _++-"-'--J.L .-J _ 19 E e D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff, David Jadwin, D.O. 20 21 ORDER The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing therefore; IT IS SO ORDERED. The Mandatory Scheduling Conference is reset to Dated: April_, 2007 _ 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ul\UED STATES DISTRICT COURT By: _ 28 The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger United States District Court Judge STIPULAnON RE: SERVICE AND RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCHEDULING OF RULE 26(1) CONFERENCE AND MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER 2
"20 Stipuation re Service and Response"