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)

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