Allen, et al v. County of Lake, et al

Filing 209

ORDER Re: January 18, 2017 Hearing. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/17/2017. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MONA ALLEN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7

v.
COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH
ORDER RE: JANUARY 18, 2017
HEARING

Defendants.

8
9
10

Counsel shall come prepared to address the following questions at the January 18,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2017 hearing:

12

For Plaintiffs:

13
14
15

1.
2.

16
17
18

3.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4.

Is it your position that Ordinance N itself is unconstitutional? Or that its
implementation is unconstitutional? Please explain your position.
You failed to respond to Defendants’ arguments that they are shielded from
liability under state immunity statutes. Why should the Court not find that
your failure to respond is a concession that Defendants are correct on this
point?
The County Defendants argue that even if the Court were to recognize a
state-based property right in medical marijuana, Plaintiffs claims must fail
because most, if not all, of the Plaintiffs were in violation of Ordinance N.
See ECF No. 200, at 8:4–23 (citing Chavez v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App.
4th 104 (2004) and Littlefield v. Cty. of Humboldt, 218 Cal. App. 4th 243
(2013)). Do you agree that a violation of Ordinance N may void a lawful
possession of medical marijuana?
Both Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ own statements that they were in lawful
possession of medical marijuana are not admissible evidence of lawful
possession according to Littlefield, 218 Cal. App. 4th at 256–57. See ECF
No. 200 at 9:1–13; ECF No. 198, at 6:6–17; ECF No. 199, at 14:8–11. Why
should Littlefield not govern here?

1

For Defendants:

2

1.

3
4
5
6

2.

7
8
9
10

3.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

4.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

For County and Freeman: You argue qualified immunity applies to the
officers who implemented the warrantless abatements because it was not
“clearly established” that such conduct was unlawful. See ECF No. 189 at
26: 18–23; ECF 187, at 23:10–12. Please explain why Conner v. City of
Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir. 1990) would not have put the officers on
notice that their alleged conduct was unlawful.
For County: You argue Plaintiffs cannot show the existence of a custom, for
purposes of Monell liability, because of the “minimal time (a few weeks) that
passed between the Ordinance’s [enactment] and these enforcements.” ECF
No. 200, at 11:7–11. Is it your position that the establishment of a custom
requires a minimum duration requirement?
For County: Do you concede that all the summary abatements conducted on
Plaintiffs’ properties were done without a warrant?
For Freeman: You argue that because you had implied authority to be on
Allen and Warren’s property, you are entitled to summary judgment for any
trespassing claims arising from the incident under Cal. Govt. Code § 821.8.
ECF No. 187, at 31. However, the legal authority you cite in support of your
claim that Freeman had a right to be on the property discusses overcoming
resistance in the context of making an arrest. Id. (citing Brown v.
Ransweiler, 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 527 (2009) and Cal. Penal Code § 835a).
How does your legal authority extend to Freeman’s conduct at the AllenWarren property?

For all parties:
1.
Regarding Plaintiff Nina Sikes Motion for Substitution (ECF No. 184):
a. Have the parties made any progress on resolving this issue since the
motion was filed?
b. Do the parties agree that Plaintiff Nina Sikes is entitled to at least onethird of Elvin Sikes’ claim in this action?
c. Assuming the Court orders re-opening of discovery, how long would the
parties need to accomplish this? Why should the Court not simply order
Plaintiff N. Sikes to supply such information within seven days?
///
///

28

2

1

2.

Assuming this case proceeds to trial, the parties shall come ready to discuss
which of the following schedules is most favorable:

2
Pretrial Statement
Deadline

3

Pretrial Conference

Trial Dates (estimated 8-day
maximum)

4

Option 1

February 6, 2017

February 21, 2017

March 7, 2017- March 16, 2017

5

Option 2

February 10, 2017

February 27, 2017

March 14, 2017 -March 23, 2017

6

Option 3

March 6, 2017

March 20, 2017

April 4, 2017- April 13, 2017

7

Option 4

March 20, 2017

April 3, 2017

April 18, 2017- April 27, 2017

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: 1/17/2017

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3