Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 294

STIPULATION AND ORDER Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, and Vacating Case Management Conference. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due by 12/14/2015. Defendants' Opposition/Cros s-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment due by 1/11/2016. Plaintiffs' Replies/Opposition on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment due by 1/19/2016. Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/01/2015. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

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]
Anne L. Keck, State Bar No. 136315
KECK LAW OFFICES
418 B Street, Suite 206
Santa Rosa, California 95401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for County Defendants

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

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

17
18
19

SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF
ORDER (1) SETTING BRIEFING AND
HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (2)
VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs,

15
16

Case No. CV-11-05817 TEH (NC)

v.
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,

20
21

Defendants.
______________________________________/

Case Management Conference
Date:
December 7, 2015
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Ctroom: 12, 19th Floor

22
23

This Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement and request for entry of an order is

24

submitted by all named and remaining parties in this action, including: Plaintiffs Rafael Mateos-

25

Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); Defendants the County of

26

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

27

official capacity (collectively, “County Defendants”); and the City of Santa Rosa and the Santa Rosa

28

Supplemental Joint Case
Management Statement, et al.

U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)

1

1

Police Department (collectively, “City Defendants”). As discussed below, the parties request the

2

Court to set a briefing schedule and hearing date on motions for partial summary judgment, and to

3

vacate the Case Management Conference currently set for December 7, 2015. The parties believe

4

the information provided herein demonstrates good cause for their requests.

5
6
7

1.

STATUS UPDATE SINCE THE FILING OF THE OCTOBER 26th CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

On March 30, May 4, July 27, September 2, and October 26, 2015, the parties submitted

8

Joint Case Management Statements in preparation for the Case Management Conference that was

9

ultimately continued to December 7, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 245, 261, 280, 286, and 290.) The parties

10

incorporate the statements made in those CMC Statements herein, and provide the status update as

11

set forth below. At the time of the filing of this statement, the only matter on calendar in this case is

12

the Case Management Conference set for December 7th.

13

Since the filing of their last case management statement, counsel for the parties have

14

negotiated the terms of a proposed stipulation for entry of a final judgment to dispense with the

15

necessity of a trial in this case. The terms of the stipulation would provide, inter alia, for the setting

16

of an amount of compensatory damages for each plaintiff, a waiver of any claim for treble damages

17

under statute, and a dismissal with prejudice of all claims except two: (1) Plaintiffs’ request for entry

18

of a judgment on their claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based solely on this Court’s prior

19

rulings that the 30-day hold of their vehicles in impound under California Vehicle Code § 14602.6

20

violated their Fourth Amendment rights (“Claim #1”); and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims that the Court’s

21

prior rulings that the 30-day hold of their vehicles in impound under California Vehicle Code §

22

14602.6 violated their Fourth Amendment rights also entitle them to entry of judgment on their

23

identical claims brought under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1 (“Claim #2”).

24

Pursuant to the proposed stipulation, the dismissal of all claims aside from Claims #1 and #2

25

would include dismissal of all federal and state law claims relating to the initial seizures of

26

Plaintiffs’ vehicles (as opposed to the 30-day hold of their vehicles) as well as all due process

27

claims. In addition, the stipulation would expressly allow the parties to appeal any of the Court’s

28

Supplemental Joint Case
Management Statement, et al.

U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)

2

1

prior orders entered in the case that are outside the terms of the stipulation, including but not limited

2

to the Court’s order denying class certification and its liability rulings on the § 1983 claims.

3

While such a stipulation has not yet been finalized, and Defendants have not yet provided

4

their assent to its proposed terms, counsel believe that the terms of the proposed stipulation are

5

viable and are in the process of obtaining client consent.

6

2.

7
8
9

REQUEST TO SET BREIFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE ON
MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The terms of the proposed stipulation as discussed above demonstrate a need for the Court to
resolve outstanding legal issues with respect to both of the Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claims and Plaintiff

10

Ruiz’s Monell claim against the City Defendants. Specifically, while the Court in its previous orders

11

resolved the § 1983 Monell claim identified above as Claim #1 against the County Defendants, it did

12

not make a liability finding on Claim #1 under Monell against the City Defendants. Further, the

13

parties continue to dispute whether a finding of liability on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims (Claim #1) also

14

necessarily entitle Plaintiffs to a finding of liability and statutory damages on their Bane Act claims

15

(Claim #2).

16

At this time, the parties believe that there are no disputed issues of material fact regarding

17

these claims, rendering them appropriate for partial summary judgment motions brought under

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Further, the parties also believe that the legal issues

19

surrounding these claims are the only remaining hurtles which prevent the parties from stipulating to

20

entry of a final judgment.

21

Accordingly, the parties have agreed and request the Court to consider the claims and issues

22

as set out above pursuant to a motion brought by Plaintiffs for partial summary judgment, to which

23

Defendants may respond by opposition and/or cross-motion. The parties propose the following

24

briefing and hearing schedule on such motions:

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

Supplemental Joint Case
Management Statement, et al.

U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)

3

1

Subject

Due Dates

2

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment

December 14, 2015

3

Defendants’ oppositions and any cross-motions for
partial summary judgment

January 11, 2016

5

Plaintiffs’ reply/opposition on motion(s) for partial
summary judgment

January 19, 2016

6

Hearing on motion(s) for partial summary judgment

February 8, 2016, at
10:00 a.m.

4

7

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed stipulation, the Court’s decision on the motion(s) for

8
9
10
11
12
13

partial summary judgment should permit the parties to request entry of judgment resolving all claims
and issues in this case at the trial court level. The parties believe that this proposed process will
conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, and will enable this case to reach a final
resolution at the trial court level after years of litigation; accordingly, good cause supports the
parties’ requests herein.
3.

14

REQUEST TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties believe that the terms of their proposed stipulation outlined above will serve to
15
resolve this case in a timely manner from this point forward. Further, the parties do not believe that
16
a Case Management Conference would assist them in reaching a final resolution of the case at this
17
time.
18
Accordingly, the parties request the Court to vacate the Case Management Conference
19
currently set for December 7, 2015. The parties also request the Court to refrain from setting a new
20
Case Management Conference date until after resolution of the motion(s) for partial summary
21
judgment, as discussed above, if necessary.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28

Supplemental Joint Case
Management Statement, et al.

U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)

4

1
2

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 30, 2015

3

Keck Law Offices
By:

4
5

Dated: November 30, 2015

6

Caroline L. Fowler, Santa Rosa City Attorney
By:

7
8

Dated: November 30, 2015

9

/s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck
Attorneys for County Defendants

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

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

10

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

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Supplemental Joint Case
Management Statement, et al.

U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)

5

1
2
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing stipulated request, and with good cause
appearing,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

5

1.

The claims and issues identified in the parties’ stipulated request shall be presented to

6

the Court via Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

56, which is also subject to cross-motions of the Defendants, based on the following briefing and

8

hearing schedule:

9

Subject

Due Dates

10

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment

December 14, 2015

11

Defendants’ oppositions and any cross-motions for
partial summary judgment

January 11, 2016

12
13

Plaintiffs’ reply/opposition on motion(s) for partial
summary judgment

14

Hearing on motion(s) for partial summary judgment

15
2.

January 19, 2016
2016
February 8, 2106, at
10:00 a.m.

The Case Management Conference currently set for December 7, 2015, is hereby

16
vacated.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

12/01/2015
Date: _____________

____________________________________
HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Court Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Supplemental Joint Case
Management Statement, et al.

U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC)

6