In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases

Filing 115

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN REPRESENTED CASES - Response due by 12/15/2022. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/16/2022. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
Case 3:22-mc-80066-WHO Document 115 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases ______________________________ Re Case Nos.: 21-cv-01094-EJD Hudson v. Broomfield et al.; 21-cv-05805-BLF Crittenden v. Diaz et al.; 21-cv-09386-BLF Mackey v. Allison et al.; 21-cv-09581-BLF Hamilton v. Allison et al.; 22-cv-00150WHO Toalepai v. Allison et al.; 22-cv00186-EJD Colvin v. State of California et al.; 22-cv-00465-EJD Hamiltonhausey et al v. Broomfield et al. Case No. 22-mc-80066-WHO THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN REPRESENTED CASES The represented cases identified above have been assigned to me by the Chief Judge of the Northern District of California for the following limited purpose: 14 1. 15 other defenses he has raised such as whether he is a state actor who can be sued under 16 section 1983; 17 2. 18 And Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act; 19 3. 20 of law at the motion to dismiss stage; 21 4. 22 adequate detail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 23 Determining whether Clark Kelso has quasi-judicial immunity, and if not, some Determining whether the defendants have immunity under the Public Readiness Determining whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter Determining whether the complaints filed by unrepresented plaintiffs allege See Dkt. Nos. 1 (Order of Limited Assignment), 7, 51 (“Assigned Issues”). 24 In an Order dated July 15, 2022 (Dkt. No. 59), I resolved Assigned Issues 2 and 3 in 25 certain other cases where plaintiffs were represented by counsel (“Represented Cases”) and where 26 the defendants had a full opportunity to file motions to dismiss and argue grounds for immunity 27 and the plaintiffs had a full opportunity to respond. In that Order, I explained why – based on 28 materially consistent pleadings and judicially noticeable facts – plaintiffs had adequately pleaded Case 3:22-mc-80066-WHO Document 115 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 1 facts showing that neither PREP Act immunity nor qualified immunity precluded their claims at 2 the motion to dismiss stage.1 Defendants in the represented cases above are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE 3 4 why the same conclusion should not be reached in these additional represented cases.2 Defendants may respond to this Order to Show Cause by filing a response on or before United States District Court Northern District of California 5 6 December 15, 2022 (or within 15 days after waivers of service are filed for cases where waivers 7 are not filed by December 15, 2022), that simply incorporates their prior arguments on Assigned 8 Issues 2 and 3, or that raises wholly new arguments on Assigned Issues 2 or 3 based on unique 9 factual allegations made by a plaintiff in one of the cases identified above. It is not necessary for 10 defendants to reassert the arguments they made in their prior motions to dismiss regarding 11 Assigned Issues 2 and 3. I will consider those argument raised with respect to these additional 12 represented cases. If defendants file a substantive response, plaintiffs’ counsel may file a response 13 14 (addressing only the issues raised by defendants) within thirty (30) days of the defendants’ 15 response. The matter will then be taken under submission and I will issue an order that is intended 16 to resolve Assigned Issues 2 and 3 with respect to these additional represented cases and to 17 preserve the parties’ ability to appeal the resolution of the Assigned Issues. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: November 16, 2022 20 William H. Orrick United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I explicitly noted that any other issues that were raised or could have been raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to individual plaintiffs were preserved and could be reasserted once the cases were returned to each underlying judge for further proceedings. July 15, 2022 Order at 3 n.5. In the July 15, 2022 Order, I did not reach Assigned Issue 1 because federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso was not named (or was no longer named) as a defendant in any of those Represented Cases. The same is true for these additional represented cases. 1 2 A prior Order to Show Cause was entered in these cases. However, because defendants had not been served nor waived service in these represented cases, defendants did not have a full opportunity to respond. Hence, the second OSC for these cases. 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?