Olfati v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

1 S USANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney (SBN 156366) SEAN D. RICHMOND, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 210138) 2 srichmond@cityofsacramento.org KATE D.L. BROSSEAU, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 345596) 3 kbrosseau@cityofsacramento.org CITY OF SACRAMENTO 4 915 I Street, Room 4010 Sacramento, CA 95814-2608 5 Telephone: (916) 808-5346 Facsimile: (916) 808-7455 6 Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO, MARYNA STANIONIS, JARED 7 ROBINET, NATHANIEL REASON, and STEPHEN MAYER

8 STEVEN MARK KAMP (California State Bar Number (SBN) 116817) 9 steve.kamp@comcast.net STEVEN KAMP LAW OFFICE, 22 Petrilli Circle, Sacramento, CA 95822 10 Telephone: (916) 501-1791 Attorney for PARVIN OLFATI 11

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 PARVIN OLFATI, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00606-CKD

17 JOINT MOTION TO STAY ALL Plaintiff, PROCEEDINGS AND 18 vs. PROPOSED ORDER 19 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 20

Defendants. 21

23 I. 24 INTRODUCTION 25 This matter arises from Plaintiff Parvin Olfati’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Complaint against 26 the City of Sacramento (“City”), and Sacramento Police Officers Robinet, Stanionis, and 27 Reason, and City Fire Captain Stephen Mayer (hereinafter “Defendants”) alleging violations 1 for a mandatory settlement conference to occur on April 7, 2025, a final pre-trial conference 2 to occur on April 9, 2025, and the trial of this matter to commence on May 5, 2025. However, 3 due to circumstances outside of the parties’ control, Plaintiff has been made unavailable for an 4 undetermined period of time as the result of her recent confinement to Napa State Hospital on 5 March 11, 2025, ordered in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 24FE001631. As such, 6 Plaintiff is unable to personally appear in this matter until such time as the issues of her 7 confinement in that case may be resolved by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Accordingly, in light of the 8 heavy burden imposed upon counsel during the settlement and trial preparation phases, the 9 parties have jointly agreed to the instant motion to stay these proceedings until Plaintiff’s 10 confinement is resolved. 11 II. 12 ARGUMENT 13 It is within the inherent power of this Court to stay proceedings. See Landis v. North 14 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In considering the appropriateness of a stay, courts 15 typically balance the competing interests of the parties, including: (1) the damage that may 16 result from a stay; (2) inequity suffered by a party if the case moves forward; and (3) any impact 17 to the “orderly course of justice.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005); 18 See also Gates v. King County, 2021 WL 6494798, at p. 1. (W.D.Wa. 2021). 19 In the instant case, the interests of the parties in a stay of the proceedings of this matter 20 are not competing, but rather, joint. Here, as noted above, Plaintiff has been ordered to be 21 confined to Napa State Hospital related to a Court Order in Sacramento Superior Court Case 22 No. 24FE001631. The specific and actual timeframe of Plaintiff’s confinement and 23 corresponding unavailability is, at present, undetermined. What’s more, the issue of her 24 confinement is such that it requires a substantial diversion of the attention of Plaintiff’s 25 Counsel from the instant matter to effectively resolve. 26 Thus, in light of Plaintiff’s unavailability, and without the ability of her counsel to 27 appropriately prepare for the trial of this matter, this matter cannot now fairly proceed. See 1 would suffer inequity in slightly different ways. Id. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s need to resolve the 2 issues surrounding Plaintiff’s current confinement are such that he cannot adequately prepare 3 for the trial of this matter, thereby prejudicing Plaintiff’s case. Similarly, Defendants’ need to 4 examine Plaintiff in-person, at the trial of this matter would be equally impinged if the matter 5 was to proceed while Plaintiff remains confined to Napa State Hospital, thus prejudicing 6 Defendants’ ability to adequately examine her testimony in front of a jury. 7 It is also anticipated that once the issue of Plaintiff’s confinement has been fully resolved, 8 this matter will be able to proceed through either settlement or trial without interruption. See 9 Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110. Thus, apart from vacating pre-trial and trial-based dates on the 10 Court’s calendar, no damage or prejudice will result from the requested stay, and in any event, 11 the request is not now in dispute between the parties. Instead, a stay of this matter until the 12 resolution of Plaintiff’s confinement will aid the “orderly course of justice” as a stay will limit 13 the possibility of a need for subsequent or numerous continuances. Id. Further, following the 14 requested stay, once Plaintiff’s period of unavailability concludes, the parties will be able to 15 recommence this matter at the final pre-trial deadlines. 16 As both Plaintiff and Defendants share concerns regarding the ability of this matter to 17 fairly proceed without the issue of Plaintiff’s confinement being resolved, the parties equally 18 consent to a stay of the matter until Plaintiff’s release. As such, and considering that a stay is 19 inherently within this Court’s discretion, the parties jointly and respectfully request that this 20 matter, including all remaining pre-trial and trial-based deadlines, be stayed until Plaintiff has 21 fully resolved the issues surrounding her confinement as it relates to Sacramento Superior 22 Court Case No. 24FE001631. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. 23 III. 24 CONCLUSION 25 For the forgoing reasons, the parties to this matter jointly request that the matter be stayed, 26 to include all remaining pre-trial and trial-based deadlines, until such time as Plaintiff has 27 resolved the issues surrounding her confinement in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 1 DATED: March 17, 2025 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney 2

3 By: /s/ KATE D.L. BROSSEAU 4 KATE D.L. BROSSEAU Deputy City Attorney 5 Attorneys for the 6 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, MARYNA STANIONIS, JARED ROBINET, 7 NATHANIEL REASON, and STEPHEN 8 MAYER

9 DATED: March 17, 2025 STEVEN KAMP LAW OFFICE 10

11 By:/s/ Steven Mark Kamp March 17, 2025 11:25a.m. 12 STEVEN M. KAMP

13 Attorney for PARVIN OLFATI

27 PROPOSED ORDER 2 3 Good cause appearing, and in consideration of the parties’ agreement to a stay of these 4 proceedings, this Court orders that this matter be stayed until such time as Plaintiff's 5 confinement in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 24FE001631 is fully resolved. 6 Accordingly, all further proceedings, deadlines, and obligations of any party to this matter are 7 hereby removed from this Court’s calendar until the stay of this matter has been lifted. 8 In addition, the parties shall file promptly file a status report upon plaintiff’s release 9 from custody, or within 6 months from the date of this order, whichever occurs first. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll Dated: March 18, 2025 a8 } if | Ld 7 ai 12 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 7 8, olfa21cv0606.stay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28