Collins v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 40

ORDER REGARDING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. The court ORDERS counsel for the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda to tell the court whether they also represent, or intend to represent, any of the individual defendants to this action. Counsel for the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda shall do so by filing short statements on the court's Electronic Case File by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 3, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/1/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
CLAYTON COLLINS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

No. C 13-01493 LB
ORDER REGARDING THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

CITY OF OAKLAND; COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA; ATTORNEY LEO BAZILE
(DISBARRED); ANTONIO ACOSTA;
OFFICER RICK COCANOUR (ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE),

16
17
18

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Clayton Collins, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on April 3, 2013. He named 2

19

entities and 3 individuals as defendants, namely, the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, Leo

20

Bazile, Antonio Acosta, and Officer Rick Cocanour of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. So

21

far, only the entity defendants have appeared in this action, and they have filed motions to dismiss

22

Mr. Collins’s complaint. Neither of the three individual defendants have appeared, despite being

23

served with the complaint and summons.

24

The court issues this order to clarify the status of the individual defendants’ legal representation

25

(if any). In many cases, the city entity represents city employees, and the county entity represents

26

county employees. See, e.g., Spalding v. City of Oakland, No. C11-02867 TEH (N.D. Cal. June 13,

27

2011) (counsel for the City of Oakland also represented officers of the Oakland Police Department,

28

and counsel for the County of Alameda also represented the sheriff of the Alameda County Sheriff’s

C 13-01493 LB
ORDER

San Pablo also represented officers of the San Pablo Police Department, and counsel for the County

3

of Alameda also represented officers of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department). Here, counsel

4

for the County of Alameda has appeared on the County’s behalf, but they have not appeared on

5

behalf of Officer Rick Cocanour, whom Mr. Collins alleges is an officer of the Alameda County

6

Sheriff’s Office. And the court is not sure if the County of Alameda or the City of Oakland employ

7

or plan to represent Mr. Bazile or Mr. Acosta. Thus, because the court needs the consent of all

8

served defendants to finally decide the pending motions to dismiss, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the court

9

ORDERS counsel for the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda to tell the court whether they

10

also represent, or intend to represent, any of the individual defendants to this action. Counsel for the

11

City of Oakland and the County of Alameda shall do so by filing short statements on the court’s

12
For the Northern District of California

Office); Howard v. Dalisay, No. C10-05655 LB (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) (counsel for the City of

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

Electronic Case File by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 3, 2013.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-01493 LB
ORDER

2