Collins v. City of Oakland et al
Filing
43
ORDER (1) REGARDING THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND (2) CONTINUING THE HEARING ON THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Although the court appreciates that this action has been delayed, given the situatio n with the individual defendants' legal representation and the court's need for the consent of all defendants, the court CONTINUES the hearing on the entity defendants' pending motions to dismiss from October 17, 2013 to 11:00 a.m. on December 19, 2013 in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. The court also ORDERS the City of Oakland to file a status update about the individual defendants' legal representation by October 25, 2013. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/4/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2013)
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
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
14
15
16
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
No. C 13-01493 LB
ORDER (1) REGARDING THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ LEGAL
REPRESENTATION AND (2)
CONTINUING THE HEARING ON
THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS’
PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Clayton Collins, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on April 3, 2013. He named 2
17
entities and 3 individuals as defendants, namely, the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, Leo
18
Bazile, Antonio Acosta, and Officer Rick Cocanour. So far, only the entity defendants have
19
appeared in this action, and they have filed motions to dismiss Mr. Collins’s complaint. Neither of
20
the three individual defendants have appeared, despite being served with the complaint and
21
summons.
22
Because the court needs the consent of all served defendants—which, in this case, is all five
23
named defendants—to finally decide the pending motions to dismiss, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the
24
court ordered counsel for the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda to tell the court whether
25
they also represent, or intend to represent, any of the individual defendants to this action. The
26
County of Alameda told the court that it does not intend to represent any of the three individual
27
defendants. The City of Oakland, however, told the court that it definitely intends to represent Mr.
28
Acosta (and it should have a signed representation agreement with him by October 7, 2013) and that
C 13-01493 LB
ORDER
1
it has inquired whether Mr. Bazile would like the City to represent him. It also stated that it
2
currently is investigating whether Officer Cocanour is or was a City of Oakland employee who
3
might want representation as well.
4
Although the court appreciates that this action has been delayed, given the situation with the
5
individual defendants’ legal representation and the court’s need for the consent of all defendants, the
6
court CONTINUES the hearing on the entity defendants’ pending motions to dismiss from October
7
17, 2013 to 11:00 a.m. on December 19, 2013 in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District
8
Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. The court also ORDERS the
9
City of Oakland to file a status update about the individual defendants’ legal representation by
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
October 25, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 13-01493 LB
ORDER
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?