Hauschild v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 149

ORDER RE TRIAL BRIEFS. Signed by Judge Alsup on 2/13/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
THOMAS HAUSCHILD,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 15-01556 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER RE TRIAL BRIEFS
CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,
Defendants.
/
By TOMORROW AT NOON, counsel for the City of Richmond shall please advise the

17

Court whether pages 3 and 4 of the City’s amended trial brief are mistaken in stating, “Because

18

Hauschild was notified of intended discipline action on September 24, 2013, the discipline

19

could not have been based on incidents earlier than approximately September 20, 2013,” and,

20

“Only Charge One against Hauschild involved any consideration of events that occurred before

21

September 20, 2013.” Counsel shall please also explain the basis for the claim on page 3 that

22

“The statute of limitations is tolled by a minimum of five days,” and advise the Court as to any

23

other errors in the City’s pretrial filings (Dkt. No. 138 (emphasis added)).

24

Also by TOMORROW AT NOON, counsel for plaintiff Thomas Hauschild shall please

25

submit a written response, not to exceed THREE PAGES in length, addressing the City’s

26

contention that Section 13701(b) of the California Penal Code required Lt. Albert Walle to

27

consider “the history of domestic violence between the persons involved” in “identifying the

28

1

dominant aggressor” when investigating the domestic violence incident that occurred on

2

September 23, 2012 (see id. at 1–2).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: February 13, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2