Barnett v. County of Contra Costa et al

Filing 191

STIPULATION AND ORDER re: hearings and briefing schedules. Motion Hearing cotninued to 6/28/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/22/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mark E. Merin (SBN 043849) ­ [e-mail] Cathleen A. Williams (SBN 068029) ­ [e-mail] W. Gordon Kaupp (SBN 226141) ­ [e-mail] LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Andrew C. Schwartz (SBN 64578) ­ [e-mail] CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK 2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs PETER OBSTLER (SBN 171623) - [e-mail] JEE YOUNG YOU (SBN 241658) - [e-mail] BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067, U.S.A. Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 055632) [e-mail] MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES LLP 1211 Newell Ave. Post Office Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Co0oC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Co0oC ROSALETY BARNETT, ADELINE CHAN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al., Defendants.
1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE
A/73359586.1

CASE NO: C 04-04437 TEH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STIPULATION Pursuant to the Northern District of California Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff Adeline Chan ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, and Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf ("Defendants"), hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on February 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Bull v. City and County of San Francisco 565 F. 3d 964, which all parties agree constituted a change of law necessitating reconsideration of prior rulings in this case, since it articulated a different theory of liability for evaluating whether jail strip searches violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted prior to housing inmates in the general population; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, by minute order, the Court vacated its Case Management Conference date and granted leave to Defendants to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Defendants' prior motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and Motion for Summary Judgment; and WHEREAS, the parties stipulate that the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, and that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted as to the claims of Plaintiff Adeline Chan and all members of the class who were only strip searched once prior to housing; and WHEREAS Plaintiffs have determined from discovery already conducted that a portion of the class, namely, approximately 47 female class members, were subjected to a second strip search before being housed under Defendants' uniform policies, the liability for which Defendants dispute as a matter of law and fact; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have already identified, located, and received a declaration from a class member, Vanessa Hunt, who seeks to intervene in this action to represent this class of 47 women, and Plaintiffs are preparing a Motion to Amend the Complaint to conform the strip search claim to the theory of liability articulated by Bull v. San Francisco and to allow proposed class members to intervene; and WHEREAS the parties have conferred and believe that the most expeditious manner in which to address the impact of Bull v. San Francisco on this case is (1) for the Parties to stipulate to the granting of Defendants' pending Motion for Reconsideration, which is scheduled for May 17, 2010; (2) for the
2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE
A/73359586.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff to file a partial non-opposition to Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment as to all individual and class claims relating to the initial prehousing strip search at the jail, which strip searches are governed by Bull, reserving the right to file a Motion to Amend the Complaint as to the second, successive strip search of the 47 women which Class Member Vanessa Hunt seeks to represent (the "New Class Claims"); and (3) for the Defendants to oppose this Motion For Leave to Amend the Complaint on whatever grounds they deem appropriate; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined that all such Motions, including the motion hearing presently set for May 17, 2010, can and should be heard on the same day, rather than maintaining the current hearing date for Defendants' pending Motions for Summary Judgment, because Plaintiffs' and Defendants' cross Motions are closely related as to the subject matter and the issues to be adjudicated; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have agreed to file their Motion to Amend by May 10, 2010; and WHEREAS, for purposes of efficiency and judicial economy, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to consolidate the hearing date for all motions and request that the Court vacate the May 17, 2010 hearing date and reschedule it and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend on June 21, 2010; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT: 1. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, and Defendants' Motion for

Summary Judgment should be granted as to the claims of Plaintiff Adeline Chan and all members of the class other than those claims alleged on behalf of the 47 women referred to above in the Recitals. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend and Permit the Intervention of Vanessa Hunt

shall be filed on or before May 10, 2010 (the "Motion for Leave"); 3. Defendants reserve their right to assert all defenses, and arguments, that were previously

asserted or will be asserted in this case to oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave and/or the New Class claims; 4. 7, 2010; 5. \\\ Plaintiffs' shall file any Reply in support of their Motion for Leave by June 14, 2010;
3

Defendants' shall file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave on or before June

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE
A/73359586.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6.

The hearing for all of these Motions shall be consolidated and the date for hearing set on

June 21, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. before this Court in Courtroom 12. DATED: April 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN CASPER MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK /s/ - "Mark E. Merin" BY:____________________________________ Mark E. Merin Attorney for Plaintiffs DATED: April 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP and MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES, LLP /s/ - "Peter Obstler" BY:____________________________________ Peter Obstler Attorney for Defendants [PROPOSED] ORDER Good cause appearing, PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED. ** S DISTRICT 04/22/10 DATED: _____________________ TE C TA
UNIT ED

RT U O

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

**except that the motion hearing shall be set on June 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM, and not June 21, 2010.

4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE
A/73359586.1

A

C

LI

FO

.H helton E Judge T

enderso

n

R NIA

__________________________________________ HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT
NO

S

RT

H