Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 178

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Set Briefing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication, and Reschedule Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 10/10/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 10/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/21/2014. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

THOMAS F. BERTRAND, State Bar No. 056560
RICHARD W. OSMAN, State Bar No. 167993
BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Sonoma County
Sheriff Steve Freitas in his personal capacity

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL and
SIMEON AVENDANO RUIZ, individually
and as class representatives,

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20

COUNTY OF SONOMA, SONOMA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
STEVE FREITAS, CITY OF SANTA ROSA,
SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
TOM SCHWEDHELM, and DOES 1 through
20, individually and in their official capacities,

Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH (NC)
JOINT STIPULATION TO (1) SET
BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION, AND (2) RESCHEDULE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
CMC Date: September 8, 2014
CMC Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 19

Defendants.
______________________________________

21
22

TO THE HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

23

This Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary

24

Adjudication, and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference is submitted by the following

25

parties in this action: Plaintiffs Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz (collectively,

26

“Plaintiffs”); Defendant Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas sued in his personal capacity only

27

(“Sheriff Freitas”); and Defendants the City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Police Department, and Santa

28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication,
and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
Mateos-Sandoval, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)
1

1

Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm (collectively, “City Defendants”). Defendants the County of

2

Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, and Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas sued in his

3

official capacity are not parties to this stipulation, as this action is currently stayed as to all claims

4

against them based on their pending appeal. (See e.g., Dkt. No. 92.)

5

The parties to this stipulation request the Court to enter an order setting a briefing and

6

hearing schedule on a single issue to be addressed via cross-motions for summary adjudication. The

7

parties further request the Court to reschedule the Case Management Conference currently scheduled

8

to occur on September 8, 2014, to October 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., to be held at the same time as the

9

hearing on the cross-motions for summary adjudication.

10

supports their requests, as set forth below.

11
12

The parties submit that good cause

RECITALS
A.

After a discovery hearing conducted by Magistrate Judge Cousins on August 13,

13

2014, counsel for all parties met to discuss procedural issues and whether a settlement magistrate

14

should be assigned to assist the parties in settlement discussions.

15

Plaintiffs’ counsel identified a key legal question that is a threshold issue for anticipated and

16

upcoming motions for class certification and summary adjudication. Specifically, Plaintiffs identify

17

their issue as follows:

18

During these discussions,

Assuming that the initial seizure and towing of Plaintiffs’ vehicles was lawful
under both state and federal law, can Defendants justify, under the Fourth
Amendment, the warrantless seizures of Plaintiffs’ vehicles for the 30-day time
period provided in California Vehicle Code § 14602.6?

19
20
B.

The parties agree that resolution of Plaintiffs’ proposed issue will significantly and

21
materially affect the resolution of Fourth Amendment claims in the case, including putative class
22
issues. Plaintiffs contend the justification for the 30 day impounds of Plaintiffs’ vehicles is the same
23
for all vehicles impounded under Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6. Plaintiffs further contend that, should it
24
be determined that Defendants cannot justify the 30 day impounds of Plaintiffs’ vehicles, that failure
25
would apply to all vehicles impounded for 30 days under § 14602.6 regardless of whether Fourth
26
Amendment justification existed for initially seizing and removing the vehicle from the street. At
27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication,
and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
Mateos-Sandoval, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)
2

1

this time, the parties do not believe that there are any disputed material facts that would preclude

2

resolution of the identified issue.

3

C.

Plaintiffs contend that resolving this issue is “outcome determinative.” The Court’s

4

resolution of this issue will significantly affect the outcome of the case in several ways including,

5

but not limited to, the nature and extent of any classes of plaintiffs that could be certified under

6

FRCP Rule 23. Specifically, the size of the proposed classes will differ greatly depending on

7

resolution of the identified issue, as it begs the following question: do the proposed classes consist of

8

all persons who have had their vehicles impounded by Defendants under Vehicle Code § 14602.6

9

within the statute of limitations period, or do the proposed classes consist of only a small

10
11

subcategory of such a group?
D.

In addition, the parties believe that resolution of the identified issue will enable them

12

to begin conducting meaningful settlement discussions on all claims in the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel

13

has indicated that, without resolution of the identified issue, settlement discussions will not likely be

14

fruitful based on the substantial difference in damages implicated by the size of the proposed classes

15

of plaintiffs. The parties have discussed requesting the Court to appoint a magistrate judge as a

16

settlement magistrate in this case; however, it appears that such appointment is premature at this

17

time and should await resolution of the identified issue.

18

E.

The parties agree that the most expeditious and direct method to resolve the identified

19

issue would be through Plaintiffs’ filing of a motion for summary adjudication and Defendants’

20

filing of oppositions and cross-motions thereto.

21

summary adjudication may be brought before the Court pursuant to FRCP Rule 56(a), as they seek

22

summary adjudication of a portion of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants

23

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

24

F.

Counsel submit that these cross-motions for

Defendants agree to the proposed summary adjudication process for Plaintiffs’ issue

25

identified in Section A, above, only if the Court permits them to subsequently file additional

26

summary judgment and/or summary adjudication motions on other issues in the future. If the Court

27

does not consent to this process of resolving multiple motions for summary judgment and/or

28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication,
and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
Mateos-Sandoval, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)
3

1

summary adjudication via a staged process, then Defendants withdraw their consent to this request

2

for consideration of this single issue via cross-motions for summary adjudication.

3

G.

Nothing in this stipulation is intended to affect Plaintiffs’ proposed class certification

4

motions or to extend the time for the filing thereof. Further, by entering this stipulation, Defendants

5

do not waive any defenses they may have to Plaintiffs’ yet-to-be-filed class certification motion

6

including, but not limited to, their objection to the motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs have

7

unreasonably delayed its filing in violation of FRCP Rule 23 and that such delay has resulted in

8

prejudice to Defendants.

9

H.

A Case Management Conference is set to be held on September 8, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.

10

The parties believe that this conference would be more productive if it were held at the same time as

11

the hearing on the cross-motions for summary adjudication.

12
13

WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation, through their respective counsel of record,
hereby agree and request entry of an order as follows:

14
15

STIPULATION
1.

The parties request the Court to order the following briefing and hearing schedule

16

with respect to the cross-motions for summary adjudication regarding Plaintiffs’ issue identified in

17

Section A, above:

18

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication:

September 8, 2014

19

Defendants’ Oppositions and Cross-Motions:

September 29, 2014

20

Plaintiffs’ Reply:

October 6, 2014

21

Hearing on Motions:

October 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.

22

2.

The parties further request the Court to enter an order providing that these cross-

23

motions for summary adjudication may be brought without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to file

24

subsequent motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication on other issues in the case.

25

3.

The parties request the Court to enter an order rescheduling the upcoming Case

26

Management Conference, currently set for September 8, 2014, to October 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., so

27

that it could be held concurrently with the hearing on the cross-motions for summary adjudication.

28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication,
and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
Mateos-Sandoval, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)
4

1

4.

Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other

2

matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the

3

parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or

4

otherwise.

5
6

Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: August 20, 2014

7

Bertrand, Fox & Elliot
By:

8

/s/ Richard W. Osman
Richard W. Osman
Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff Steve Freitas

9
10

Dated: August 20, 2014

11

Caroline L. Fowler, Santa Rosa City Attorney
By:

12

/s/ Robert L. Jackson
Robert L. Jackson, Assistant City Attorney
Attorneys for City Defendants

13
14
15
16

Dated: August 20, 2014

Robert Mann & Donald W. Cook, Attorneys at Law
By:

/s/ Donald W. Cook
Donald W. Cook
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication,
and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
Mateos-Sandoval, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)
5

1
2
3
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

The following briefing and hearing schedule is ordered with respect to the cross-

5

motions for summary adjudication regarding Plaintiffs’ issue identified in Section A of the

6

Stipulation:

7

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication:

September 8, 2014

8

Defendants’ Oppositions and Cross Motions:

September 29, 2014

9

Plaintiffs’ Reply:

October 6, 2014

Hearing on Motions:

October 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.

10
11

2.

These cross-motions for summary adjudication may be brought without prejudice to

12

Defendants’ ability to file subsequent motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication

13

on other issues in the case.

14

3.

The upcoming Case Management Conference, currently set for September 8, 2014, is

15

rescheduled to October 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., to be held concurrently with the hearing on the

16

cross-motions for summary adjudication. The parties shall submit a joint case management

17

statement at least one week prior to the Case Management Conference.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

08/21/2014
Date: _____________

20

____________________________________
HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Court Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Summary Adjudication,
and (2) Reschedule Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order
Mateos-Sandoval, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)
6