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