Ramirez v. City Of Hayward et al

Filing 50

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing re: Dkt. Nos. 32 , 38 ; Defendants' Response due 7/16/15; Plaintiff's Response due 7/23/15. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/9/15. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NOEL RAMIREZ,

Case No. 14-cv-01264-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
9
10

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 38

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Noel Ramirez brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Hayward

14

(the “City”), Police Officer Richard McLeod, and Officers Doe 1-25 (collectively “Defendants”)

15

for the alleged use of excessive force during his March 4, 2013 arrest. Pending before the Court is

16

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 38, “MSJ”), as well as McLeod’s to

17

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 32, “MTD”). The Court held a hearing on these matters on July 2,

18

2015. Dkt. No. 49.

19

Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this

20

case, the Court requires supplemental briefing concerning four of Plaintiff’s claims that were not

21

adequately addressed in the parties’ briefing: (1) Plaintiff’s first cause of action, an unreasonable

22

search and seizure claim against McLeod for a violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) Plaintiff’s

23

fourth cause of action, an assault and battery claim against McLeod; (3) Plaintiff’s seventh cause

24

of action, a claim against McLeod for a violation of California Civil Code section 52.1(b) for

25

interference with Plaintiff’s exercise and enjoyment of his civil rights under the United States and

26

California Constitutions; and (4) Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action, a claim for negligence against

27

McLeod. Officer McLeod argues that all the claims against him are barred under Federal Rule of

28

Civil Procedure 4(m)—including the claims above. MSJ at 4-5. He also argues that California

1

Government Code section 945.6 bars Plaintiff’s state law claims against him because Plaintiff

2

filed his First Amended Complaint—the first complaint to properly name McLeod—on August

3

29, 2014, which was more than six months after the City sent Plaintiff notice of the rejection of his

4

claim. Id. at 6-8. But there was no argument from either party about the four claims above in the

5

event that the Court did not accept Defendants’ arguments under Rule 4(m) or section 945.6.

6

Accordingly, by July 16, 2015, Defendants shall file a supplemental brief addressing the

7

four claims above, or a statement that they waive arguments as to those claims. If Defendants file

8

a supplemental brief, Plaintiff shall file a response by July 23, 2015. Each supplemental brief

9

should be no longer than 10 pages total, exclusive of related declarations and related evidence.
The Court will consider amendments to this briefing schedule in the event that the parties are able

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to agree to an alternative schedule and provide such a stipulation to the Court.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: July 9, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2