Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al

Filing 260

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/30/2017 ORDERING that the judgment in this action is VACATED pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MARKUS M. HALL, MONIQUE G. RANKIN, LINDSEY K. SANDERS, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 No. 2:10-cv-0508 DB ORDER v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD, OFFICER NICK McDOWELL, OFFICER CHRIS GRIMM, OFFICERS TOM SHACKFORD, OFFICER ZACK SANDOVAL, AND SERGEANT STEVE CRANE, 18 Defendants. 19 20 This matter came before the court on March 27, 2015, for hearing of the parties’ joint 21 motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).1 (ECF No. 22 256.) Attorney Thiele Dunaway appeared at the hearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and attorney 23 Suzanne Nicholson appeared on behalf of the defendants. The parties’ motion was conditionally 24 granted subject to the granting of plaintiffs’ petitions for determinations of factual innocence by 25 the Solano County Superior Court.2 26 1 27 28 The parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 175.) 2 This matter was reassigned from the previously assigned Magistrate Judge to the undersigned on January 9, 2017. (ECF No. 257.) 1 1 On January 10, 2017, plaintiffs filed a “NOTICE RE OCCURRENCE OF CONDITION 2 TO VACATING JUDGMENT.” (ECF No. 258.) Therein, plaintiffs state that they “have no 3 objection to having the judgment vacated in accordance with this Court’s March 30, 2015 order,” 4 provided that counsel for defendants “confirms in writing that all appropriate law enforcement 5 agencies” have received notice of plaintiffs’ findings of factual innocence and that “all of those 6 agencies have sealed and have destroyed or will destroy” plaintiffs’ respective arrest records. 7 (Id. at 2.) 8 9 On February 3, 2017, counsel for defendants filed a response stating that defense counsel has provided plaintiffs’ counsel “assurances from the Fairfield police department that plaintiffs’ 10 names have been removed from the department’s database with respect to this case, and their 11 names redacted from the physical case report.” (ECF No. 259 at 2.) Moreover, plaintiffs’ 12 counsel “confirmed . . . that she is satisfied . . . . and . . . has no objection to the Court vacating 13 the judgment against the City and Officer McDowell.” (Id.) 14 Accordingly, in light of the court’s prior order and the parties’ representations, IT IS 15 HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment in this action is vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17 Dated: March 30, 2017 18 19 20 21 22 23 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.consent\hall0508.60(b)(6).ord 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?