Graff v. City of Vallejo
This text of Graff v. City of Vallejo (Graff v. City of Vallejo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 RANDY J. RISNER Interim City Attorney, SBN 172552 2 BY: KATELYN M. KNIGHT Deputy City Attorney, SBN 264573 3 CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall 555 Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor 4 Vallejo, CA 94590 Tel: (707) 648-4545 5 Fax: (707) 648-4687 Email: katelyn.knight@cityofvallejo.net 6
7 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF VALLEJO and BRIAN MURPHY
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 10 SHERRY GRAFF, an individual Case No. 2:18-cv-02848-KJM-CKD 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY 12 CASE PENDING RESOLUTION OF vs. CRIMINAL ACTION 13 CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal 14 corporation; BRIAM MURPHY as an individual and in his official capacity as a 15 police officer for the VALLEJO POLICE 16 DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
17 Defendant.
18 19 WHEREAS this case arises from the arrest of Sherry Graff on April 24, 2018; 20 WHEREAS the District Attorney brought charges against Ms. Graff for resisting arrest 21 in violation of Penal Code § 148(a)(1) and being under the influence of a controlled substance in 22 violation of Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) in connection with her arrest on April 24, 2018, 23 which case is currently pending in the Solano County Superior Court, Case No. VCR232945; 24 WHEREAS a conviction in the criminal case may bar some or all of Plaintiff’s claims 25 against Defendants under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); 26 WHEREAS California Government Code § 945.3 precludes Plaintiff from litigating her 27 claims under State law against Officer Murphy and the City of Vallejo while the criminal case is 28 pending; 1 WHEREAS Defendants filed a contested motion for stay on August 8, 2019, which was 2 taken under submission by the Court but has not yet been ruled upon; 3 WHEREAS Plaintiff was previously unwilling to stipulate to a stay, but now believes 4 that a stay is appropriate; 5 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their 6 counsel that this case be stayed pending resolution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff 7 Sherry Graff currently pending in Solano County Superior Court. 8 9 DATED: February 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
11 /s/ Patrick Buelna__ PATRICK BUELNA 12 Attorney for Plaintiff SHERRY GRAFF
14 DATED: February 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 15
16 /s/ Katelyn M. Knight KATELYN M. KNIGHT 17 Deputy City Attorney 18 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF VALLEJO and BRIAN MURPHY 19
20 21 _____________________________________________________________________________ 22 ORDER 23 Defendants’ motion to stay, ECF No. 12, is hereby denied as MOOT. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: March 3, 2020.
27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Graff v. City of Vallejo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graff-v-city-of-vallejo-caed-2020.