Jackson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 57

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/29/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2010)

Jackson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 57

*E-Filed 12/29/10* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// 1
ST IPU LA T IO N RE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CV-09-2143-RS
Dockets.Justia.com

C. D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258 Don B. Kates - S.B.N. 39193 Glenn S. McRoberts - SBN 144852 Clinton Monfort - S.B.N.255609 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, PC 180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 562-216-4445 Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ESPANOLA JACKSON, PAUL COLVIN, THOMAS BOYER, LARRY BARSETTI, DAVID GOLDEN, NOEMI MARGARET ROBINSON, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. SAN FRANCISCO VETERAN POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ) FRANCISCO, MAYOR GAVIN ) NEWSOM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;) POLICE CHIEF GEORGE GASCON, in his ) official capacity, and Does 1-10, ) ) Defendants. ) )

CASE NO. CV-09-2143-RS STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VALIDITY OF SFPC §§ 4512, 1290, and 613.10(g) Violation of the Right Self-Defense Under State Law

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1) and Northern District Local Rule 7-12, the parties to this action, through their respective attorneys of record, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 24, 2009.

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

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have decided to forego pursuing their fifth claim for relief, challenging the validity of San Francisco Police Code sections 4512, 1290, and 613.10(g) as a violation of the right to self-defense under Article 1 of the California Constitution and California Penal Code section 12026, in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their counsel that the following claim in the above-titled action be dismissed without prejudice: FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VALIDITY OF SFPC §§ 4512, 1290, and 613.10(g) Violation of the Right Self-Defense Under State Law (Cal. Const., art. 1 § 1, Cal. Penal Code § 12026) Although this claim shall be dismissed without prejudice, the parties stipulate that Plaintiffs shall and hereby do waive their rights to pursue this claim, or any other state law claims, during the course of this litigation. The parties further stipulate that Plaintiffs shall and hereby do waive any claim for fees and/or costs under section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Date: November 8, 2010 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, PC

/S/ C. D. Michel Attorney for Plaintiffs ESPANOLA JACKSON, et al. Date: November 8, 2010 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS SHERRI SOKELAND KAISER Deputy City Attorneys /S/ Sherri Sokeland Kaiser Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, and POLICE CHIEF GEORGE GASCON

2
ST IPU LA T IO N RE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CV-09-2143-RS

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

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

12/29/10 Date: _____________ The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Court Judge

3
ST IPU LA T IO N RE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CV-09-2143-RS