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.)

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