Spitzer et al v. Aljoe et al

Filing 150

ORDER for Daniel Lawrence Baxter to File Declaration; Declaration due by 11/5/2015. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/29/2015. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 THOMAS A. SPITZER, et al., Case No. 13-cv-05442-MEJ Plaintiffs, 7 v. ORDER FOR DANIEL LAWRENCE BAXTER TO FILE DECLARATION 8 9 TRISHA A. ALJOE, et al., Defendants. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On August 7, 2015, Plaintiffs Thomas “Leroy” Spitzer and Craig Spitzer (“Plaintiffs”) and 13 Defendants City of Pleasanton, Trisha Aljoe, Jonathan Lowell, George Thomas, Walter 14 Wickboldt, Officer Ryan Tujague, and Robert Leong (“City Defendants”) engaged in court- 15 ordered mediation, which resulted in a settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 135 at 5. Pending before 16 the Court is the City Defendants’ Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination pursuant 17 to California Civil Code sections 877 and 877.6. Dkt. No. 136. 18 In addition to the City Defendants’ Application, on September 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a 19 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Court’s Order denying 20 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, or in the alternative for Leave to 21 File a Motion for Leave to Amend. Dkt. No. 139. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to re-assert 22 claims against a former Defendant, J. Benjamin McGrew, whom the Court previously dismissed. 23 Id.; see Dkt. No. 44 (Order re: Mot. to Dismiss McGrew). The Court recently granted that Motion 24 in part, permitting Plaintiffs Leave to File a Motion to Amend their Complaint, on the basis that 25 Plaintiffs may possess facts establishing a viable claim against McGrew. Dkt. No. 145. 26 Given the Court’s decision to allow Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend, and the potential 27 that McGrew may re-enter these proceedings, the Court ordered McGrew to attend the October 8, 28 2015 hearing on the City Defendants’ Application, as any good faith settlement determination in 1 2 favor of the City Defendants may affect Plaintiffs’ claims against him. Id. McGrew did not attend the October 8, 2015 hearing. Dkt. No. 148. At the hearing, the 3 Court indicated its preliminary approval of the City Defendants’ Application, but on the same day 4 issued an Order permitting McGrew another opportunity to file objections to the Application by 5 October 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 147. As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no 6 objections or other response from McGrew. The Court has confirmed that McGrew’s counsel, 7 Daniel Lawrence Baxter, received electronic notice of both the Order for McGrew to attend the 8 hearing and the Order for McGrew to submit any objections (the “Good Faith Settlement Orders”). 9 As the settlement between Plaintiffs and the City Defendants involves claims that may affect McGrew, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, ORDERS Daniel Lawrence Baxter to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 file a declaration by November 5, 2015, responding to the following: 12 13 14 (1) Did Mr. Baxter notify McGrew of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint? (2) Did Mr. Baxter notify McGrew of the Good Faith Settlement Orders and the 15 opportunity to file objections to the City Defendants’ Application for a Good Faith 16 Settlement Determination? 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 Dated: October 29, 2015 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?