Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS for leave/reconsideration 98 95 ; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/6/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2010)

Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda

Doc. 102

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
L A W O F F IC E S O F

PAUL L. REIN, Esq. (SBN 43053) CELIA MCGUINNESS, Esq. (SBN 159420) CATHERINE M. CABALO, Esq. (SBN 248198) LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 510/832-4787 [e-mail] BRIAN GEARINGER, Esq. (SBN 146125) GEARINGER LAW GROUP 825 Van Ness Ave., 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94109-7891 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415/440-3103 [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff SHAWNA WILKINS-JONES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHAWNA WILKINS-JONES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. / CASE NO. C08-01485-MHP Civil Rights
DENYING

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 28, 2010, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Having considered Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Application is GRANTED. Having considered plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they derive from
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CASE NO. 08-01485 MHP

PAUL L. REIN
200 L A K E S I D E D R ., S U I T E A O A K L A N D , C A 94612-3503 [phone]

-1-

S : \ C A S E S \ A \ A L A C T Y - JO N E S \ P L E A D I N G S \ M o t i o n for R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n \ r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n prop o s e d ord e r . w p d

Dockets.Justia.com

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
L A W O F F IC E S O F

a common nucleus of operative fact with plaintiff's federal claim for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehab Act of 1973, such that the entire action before the court comprises one constitutional case. See Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Therefore plaintiff's claims for state law injunctive relief and for attorney fees under California Civil Code section 1021.5 are reinstated. Moreover, in the interests of justice plaintiff is granted leave to amend her Complaint to allege facts which would overcome the factual infirmities which led the Court to dismiss her federal claim for injunctive relief under Article III of the United States Constitution.
S DISTRICT TE C TA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT U O

7/6 Dated: ______________, 2010

UNIT ED

United States District Judge
ari Judge M

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

PAUL L. REIN
200 L A K E S I D E D R ., S U I T E A O A K L A N D , C A 94612-3503 [phone]

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CASE NO. 08-01485 MHP

-2-

S : \ C A S E S \ A \ A L A C T Y - JO N E S \ P L E A D I N G S \ M o t i o n for R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n \ r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n prop o s e d ord e r . w p d

A

C

LI

FO

lyn H. P

atel

R NIA

ERED O ORD Hon. MARILYN H. PATEL IT IS S

S
NO

RT

H