Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al
Filing
1124
ORDER re: compensation of Monitor and Compliance Director, who shall now be paid through the Court registry. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/19/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2017)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
5
6
7
8
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Case No. 00-cv-04599-TEH
ORDER RE: COMPENSATION OF
MONITOR AND COMPLIANCE
DIRECTOR
Defendants.
9
10
Earlier this week, the Oakland City Council refused to approve the annual renewal
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
of the Monitor’s and Compliance Director’s contracts. Rather than approve a one-year
12
extension, the Council approved only a two-month extension. This is untenable.
13
As the Court has repeatedly reminded the City, the Monitor and Compliance
14
Director are appointed by and derive their authority from the Court, not from any
15
contractual arrangement with the City. One example of this can be found in the Court’s
16
April 10, 2013 order, which clarified that which should have needed no clarification:
17
21
To avoid any ambiguity, the Court makes explicit that which
should have been clear from the outset: The scope of the
Monitor’s work is governed by this Court and not by the
Monitor’s contract with the City. If the City contends that it
cannot pay the Monitor for any work ordered or directed by
this Court that may go beyond the contract, then the City shall
immediately notify the Court so that the Court can arrange for
payment of the Monitor’s reasonable fees and expenses
through the Court’s registry.
22
Apr. 10, 2013 Order at 2 n.1. See also, e.g., Dec. 12, 2012 Order at 3 (“The Court expects
23
the City to reach a prompt compensation agreement with the Compliance Director upon
24
appointment. If an agreement or any payment is unduly delayed, the Court will order the
25
City to pay the Compliance Director, as well as the Monitor, through the Court’s
26
registry.”); Mar. 4, 2013 Order at 2 (“find[ing] it prudent to have the Compliance
27
Director’s salary paid through the Court” and ordering the City to deposit sufficient funds
28
to cover the first year of the Compliance Director’s salary).
18
19
20
1
The Monitor and current Compliance Director have previously reached contractual
2
agreements with the City – albeit not always without delay – but such agreements are not
3
required for their compensation. To avoid further delays, and to ensure the continuity of
4
court oversight, the Court now orders that the Monitor and Compliance Director shall both
5
be paid through the Court registry.
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City shall deposit $100,000 into
7
the Court registry on or before February 1, 2017. Within fourteen calendar days of the
8
entry of each order approving payment to the Monitor or Compliance Director, the City
9
shall deposit the full amount paid by the order such that the funds on deposit are
replenished to $100,000. When both the Monitor’s and Compliance Director’s services are
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
terminated, the Clerk shall disburse to the City the balance of funds on deposit in the
12
registry, including any earned interest.
13
Finally, the Court notes that the timing of the City’s defiance is somewhat
14
suspicious, coming a week after the undersigned announced that he will be taking inactive
15
status later this year. Defendants are reminded that the Court’s announcement does not
16
diminish its authority, and Defendants remain obligated to achieve substantial, sustainable
17
compliance as a prerequisite to ending court oversight.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
Dated: 01/19/17
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
23
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?