Gilliam v. City of West Sacramento et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/7/14. Initial Scheduling Conference reset for 4/28/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Joint Status Report due by 4/14/14. (Manzer, C)

1

5

JAMES C. ASHWORTH, SBN 151272
THE ASHWORTH LAW OFFICE
1105 Kennedy Place, Suite 8
Davis, California 95616
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

6

Attorney for Plaintiff ROCHELLE L. GILLIAM

2
3
4

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROCHELLE L. GILLIAM,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15
16
17

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO,
SERGIO ALVAREZ, DAN
DRUMMOND, and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants.

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02276-WBS-AC
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT &
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Date: February 18, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 5

Judge: The Hon. William B. Shubb

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff GILLIAM hereby submits the following Status Report:
This Status Report is submitted solely on behalf of Plaintiff GILLIAM, and not jointly on
behalf of all parties, because no other party has appeared in this case. All Defendants have been
served, and their respected responses are anticipated by March 4, 2014 (discussed in greater detail
in section 1, below.) Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Status Hearing be
continued for sixty (60) days to allow all parties to appear and participate in both the report and
the hearing.

28
29

1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
30
31

Case No. 2:13-CV-02276-WBS-AC

1
2

1. Jurisdiction & Service
The complaint in this matter was originally filed by Plaintiffs on November 1, 2013. The

3

original complaint was served on Defendant CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO on November 21,

4

2013. As the employer for the remaining two (2) Defendants (both former law enforcement

5

officers), it was anticipated that the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO would answer on behalf of

6

all Defendants.

7

At the time of the filing of the original complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to

8

proceed under the pseudonym JANE DOE. This application was denied and, pursuant to the

9

court’s order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint replacing the pseudonym JANE DOE with her

10

true name – ROCHELLE GILLIAM. In late December, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with

11

counsel for the Defendants about the status of their response and defense counsel correctly pointed

12

out that the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO had not been served with the operative complaint,

13

but merely the original complaint using the pseudonym JANE DOE. Consequently, Plaintiff

14

served the first amended complaint on Defendant CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO on January

15

14, 2014. Shortly thereafter, counsel for DAN DRUMMOND received authority to waive service

16

and on January 23, 2014, service was waived by Defendant DRUMMOND’S attorney.

17

Simultaneously, separate counsel was retained to represent Defendant ALVAREZ.

18

Defendant ALVAREZ is presently incarcerated and is in the midst of a criminal trial in Yolo

19

County Superior Court involving the same facts that give rise to this lawsuit. The criminal trial of

20

Defendant ALVAREZ began on January 21, 2014, and is anticipated to last another 2-3 weeks.

21

Both the criminal attorney and the civil attorney for Defendant ALVAREZ have been served with

22

the complaint; however, neither have received authority from their client to accept service. While

23

Defendant ALVAREZ is in a courtroom each weekday in Yolo County, the presiding judge will

24

not permit him to be served in this courtroom. Service was attempted in the Yolo County jail;

25

however, Defendant ALVAREZ is being housed out of Yolo County for safety reasons, i.e. he is a

26

former police officer. Defendant ALVAREZ has been located in the Solano County jail and was

27

finally sub-served through the deputies at the jail on February 2, 2014.

28
29

2
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
30
31

Case No. 2:13-CV-02276-WBS-AC

Plaintiff’s counsel has been in frequent communication with Bruce Kilday of the firm

1
2

Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff who has been retained to represent Defendants CITY OF WEST

3

SACRAMENTO and the former Chief of Police DAN DRUMMOND. Although the CITY OF

4

WEST SACRAMENTO’S answer is due on February 13, Defendant DRUMMOND’S answer is

5

not due until late March, 2014. Mr. Kilday has agreed to split the difference and answer on behalf

6

of both Defendants on the same day that Defendant ALVAREZ is scheduled to answer – March 4,

7

2014.

8
9
10
11
12
13

John Lavra of the firm Longyear, O’Dea & Lavra has been retained to represent Defendant
SERGIO ALVAREZ.
This matter was filed in Federal Court based on subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1331 and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
2. Facts
On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk in the City of West

14

Sacramento when she was stopped by Defendant/Officer ALVAREZ in his marked police vehicle,

15

while wearing his police uniform. Defendant/Officer ALVAREZ frisked Plaintiff and found

16

nothing, nevertheless he threatened to arrest Plaintiff and make up a charge to justify her arrest.

17

Defendant/Officer ALVAREZ then handcuffed Plaintiff, placed her under arrest, and forced her

18

into the back of his police vehicle.

19

Defendant/Officer ALVAREZ drove Plaintiff in his police vehicle to an isolated parking

20

lot, in the City of West Sacramento, where he forced Plaintiff to commit sexual acts against her

21

will. At all times, Defendant/Officer ALVAREZ was employed by Defendant CITY OF WEST

22

SACRAMENTO and was under the supervision of Defendant/Police Chief DAN DRUMMOND.

23
24

3. Legal Issues
Plaintiff has alleged assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, violations of her civil

25

rights as well as negligent supervision by the Defendants CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO and

26

DRUMMOND.

27
28
29

3
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
30
31

Case No. 2:13-CV-02276-WBS-AC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

4. Motions
There are no pending motions at this time.
5. Amendment of Pleadings
Plaintiff does not anticipate amending the complaint at this time and Defendants are
expected to respond by March 4, 2014.
6. Discovery
Discovery will begin as soon as the Defendants file their respective appearances.
7. Related Cases
The Court has already determined that the case of Wilson v. The City of West Sacramento,
et al, case no. 2:13-CV-02550-KJM-EFB, is related.
8. Trial
Defendant ALVAREZ is presently standing trial on a criminal matter that will likely

13

determine whether liability is disputed. If Defendant ALVAREZ is convicted of sexually

14

assaulting Plaintiff, the trial of this matter will likely be 1-2 weeks. If Defendant ALVAREZ is

15

not convicted, and liability is disputed, the trial will probably be closer to 3 weeks.

16
17
18

Dated: February 4, 2014

THE ASHWORTH LAW OFFICE

19
20

___/s/ James C. Ashworth_____________________
JAMES C. ASHWORTH
Attorney for Plaintiff

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

4
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
30
31

Case No. 2:13-CV-02276-WBS-AC

ORDER

1
2
3

The above Scheduling Conference is continued to April 28, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. A Joint
Status Report shall be filed no later than April 14, 2014.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED
5
6

Dated: February 7, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
30
31

Case No. 2:13-CV-02276-WBS-AC