Dector et al v. City of Rohnert Park et al

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF SPECIFIED CLAIMS FOR RELIEF OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/20/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

STEVEN C. MITCHELL, ESQ., SBN 124644
ROBERT W. HENKELS, ESQ., SBN 225410
GEARY, SHEA, O’DONNELL, GRATTAN & MITCHELL, P.C.
37 Old Courthouse Square, Fourth Floor
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 707/545-1876
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK and ROHNERT PARK
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEDRO DECTOR AND FLORIBERTO PEREZ
OJEDA and all others similarly situated,,

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15

CASE NO.: C 13-0104 RS
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF
SPECIFIED CLAIMS FOR RELIEF OF
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
[Proposed] ORDER DISMISSING
SPECIFIED CLAIMS

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, ROHNERT
PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
and DOES 1-5, inclusive,

16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
1.

Since the Stipulated Order Dismissing the First Claim of Relief in the First Amended

21

Complaint (“FAC”), issued by this Court on April 29, 2013, the parties have continued to meet and

22

confer concerning the issues raised by plaintiffs’ FAC. After careful discussion, the parties now

23

agree and stipulate as stated herein.

24

2.

The parties agree and stipulate that the Third Claim for Relief in the FAC, alleging a

25
LAW OFFICES OF

GEARY,
SHEA,
O’DONNELL,
GRATTAN &

MITCHELL
P.C.

violation of plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws, shall be dismissed with prejudice as

26

against the named defendants in this case. However, plaintiffs reserve any rights available to them

27

to pursue relief against the State of California and/or the Attorney General if they deem such an

28

action is warranted.
________________________________________________________________________________
-1Stipulation for Dismissal of Specified Claims for Relief of First Amended Complaint; Order Dismissing Specified
Claims

1

3.

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim for Relief in the FAC is one for declaratory and injunctive

2

relief. Among other things, plaintiffs have requested that this Court decide whether it is legal to

3

effect a vehicle impoundment under California Vehicle Code § 1460.26 where the driver is without

4

a valid California License but has previously been issued a driver’s license from a foreign

5

jurisdiction, such as Mexico. (See FAC ¶71). The parties agree and stipulate that this aspect of

6

plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim for Relief is moot in light of policy changes effected by defendants, and shall

7

therefore be dismissed without prejudice and stricken from paragraph 71 of the FAC.

8

4.

The parties agree that all parties are to bear their own fees and costs with respect to

9

the dismissals agreed to in this stipulation and with respect to the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Fourth

10

Amendment Claim reflected in the Stipulated Order of April 29, 2013.

11

5.

In order to better facilitate the adjudication of the issues raised by plaintiffs’

12

complaint given the parties’ stipulations, the parties agree that plaintiffs shall file a Second

13

Amended Complaint which restates plaintiffs’ remaining claims in accordance with the Stipulated

14

Order of April 29, 2013 and the instant Stipulation and Order which collectively ordered dismissed

15

and stricken certain allegations and claims. Plaintiffs shall file the Second Amended Complaint

16

within 10 days of the Court’s issuance of the instant Order.

17
18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: May 17, 2013

19

By

20
21

/s/ Mark T. Clausen
MARK T. CLAUSEN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PEDRO DECTOR and FLORIBERTO PEREZ
OJEDA

22
23

DATED: May 17, 2013

GEARY, SHEA, O'DONNELL, GRATTAN &
MITCHELL, P.C.

24
25
LAW OFFICES OF

GEARY,
SHEA,
O’DONNELL,
GRATTAN &

MITCHELL
P.C.

26
27
28

By

/s/ Robert W. Henkels
ROBERT W. HENKELS
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK and ROHNERT
PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

________________________________________________________________________________
-2Stipulation for Dismissal of Specified Claims for Relief of First Amended Complaint; Order Dismissing Specified
Claims

STIPULATED ORDER

1
2

After review of the parties’ Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby orders

3

as follows: The Third Claim for Relief of plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, alleging a violation

4

of equal protection of the law, is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as to the named defendants

5

only. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim for Relief for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is hereby DISMISSED

6

IN PART as set forth in the Stipulation. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims with respect to the legality

7

under California Law, Vehicle Code section 14602.6, of impounding a vehicle driven by an

8

unlicensed driver who has previously been issued a license in a foreign country, is DISMISSED as

9

moot, without prejudice. Each party is to bear their own fees and costs with respect to the

10

dismissals made by this Order and the Stipulated Order issued April 29, 2013. Plaintiffs shall file a

11

Second Amended Complaint consistent with this Order and with the Court’s Order issued April 29,

12

2013 within 10 days of entry of this Order. All other issues are reserved.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: 5/20/13

_____________________________________
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES OF

GEARY,
SHEA,
O’DONNELL,
GRATTAN &

MITCHELL
P.C.

26
27
28

________________________________________________________________________________
-3Stipulation for Dismissal of Specified Claims for Relief of First Amended Complaint; Order Dismissing Specified
Claims