Ashley v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 143

ORDER WITHDRAWING PORTION OF FEBRUARY 2, 2014 AMENDED ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 132 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 28, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMESON ASHLEY, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-00045-JST

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER WITHDRAWING PORTION
OF FEBRUARY 2, 2014 AMENDED
ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
9
10

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 132

12
13

On February 2, 2014, the Court issued an Amended Order Granting In Part And Denying

14

In Part Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 132. On February 15, 2014, Defendants filed a

15

motion seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The underlying motion asked the Court

16

to reconsider the portion of its February 2 order holding that Deputy Edwards’ intentional booking

17

of Plaintiff Ashley under a false name violated Ashley’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from

18

unlawful seizure. ECF No. 133. The Court granted leave to file the motion and, on February 15,

19

Defendants filed it. ECF No. 137.

20

Shortly thereafter, however, and before the Plaintiff could respond to the motion for

21

reconsideration or the Court could consider it, the parties reached a settlement in principle. See

22

ECF No. 140. All dates in the case have now been vacated, other than a Case Management

23

Conference in June, because the parties believe that they will successfully resolve the matter

24

without trial.

25

Because the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration reasonably cast doubt on one of the

26

conclusions in the Court’s February 2 order, because the issue will now not be fully briefed or

27

considered, and given the importance of issue, the Court now WITHDRAWS page 19, lines 6 to 19, of

28

its February 2, 2014 order; withdraws footnote 8 on page 19; and withdraws numbered paragraph four

1

on page 25. Those portions of the Court’s order may not be cited for any purpose, in this case or any

2

other.

3

To be clear, the Court does not now reach a conclusion opposite to the one reached in those

4

portions of its February 2 order. Rather, for now, the Court does not reach any conclusion. The

5

Fourth Amendment issue discussed there requires further briefing, argument, and consideration, which

6

must await a future case.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2