Barnett v. County of Contra Costa et al

Filing 205

STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing plaintiff Chan's claims. Adeline Chan terminated. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/24/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010) Modified on 6/24/2010 (rbe, COURT STAFF).

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, VANESSA HUNT, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al., Defendants. CASE NO: C 04-04437 TEH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN'S CLAIMS AND SUCH PART OF THE CLASS THAT SHE REPRESENTS

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN'S CLAIMS Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE

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 DATED: June 24, 2010

STIPULATION Pursuant to the Northern District of California Local Rules 77-2(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41, 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, the parties stipulate that the claims of Plaintiff Adeline Chan shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 565 F.3d 964, issued on February 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, the claims of all class members who were subject to only one strip search, prior to housing, without reasonable suspicion, shall also be dismissed; WHEREAS female class members subjected to a second strip search before being housed under Defendants' uniform policies, shall remain as class members, the liability for which Defendants dispute as a matter of law and fact, without being dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT: Plaintiff Adeline Chan and the class of persons she represents who were subject to only one strip search, prior to housing, without reasonable suspicion, shall be dismissed. DATED: June 24, 2010 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN CASPER MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK /s/ - "Mark E. Merin" BY:____________________________________ Mark E. Merin Attorney for Plaintiffs Respectfully submitted, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP and MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES, LLP /s/ - "Peter Obstler" BY:____________________________________ Peter Obstler Attorney for Defendants
2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN'S CLAIMS Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER Good cause appearing, PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED. 06/24/10 DATED: _____________________

UNIT ED

S DISTRICT TE C __________________________________________ TA HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON

RT U O

JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT

S

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN'S CLAIMS Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE

A

C

LI

FO

helton Judge T

E. Hend

erson

R NIA

NO

RT

H