Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 2462

ORDER REVISING THE 2180 MODIFIED INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/5/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 94-2307 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER REVISING THE
MODIFIED
INJUNCTION
(Docket No. 2180)

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

This order revises Sections D.2. and D.3. of this Court's

11

Modified Injunction (Docket No. 2180).

12

Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in Armstrong v. Brown, 2014 WL

13

4783091 (9th Cir.)

14

Sections D.2. and D.3. of this Court's Modified Injunction

15

delegated too much authority to the Court-appointed expert witness

16

to resolve disputes between Plaintiffs' counsel and the State.

17

then vacated those sections, and instructed this Court to revise

18

those sections to be consistent with its opinion.

19
20

It is made pursuant to the

In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that

It

BACKGROUND
Section D.2. provides the procedure to be used with regard to

21

disputed allegations of non-compliance.

22

part, "If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute

23

informally, Plaintiffs' counsel may request that the Court's

24

expert review and resolve the matter."

25

WL 3638675, at *11 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd in part, vacated in part,

26

remanded, by 2014 WL 4783091 (9th Cir.).

27

"Administrative decisions made by the Court's expert pursuant to

28

It provides, in relevant

Armstrong v. Brown, 2012

Furthermore, it states,

1

this section shall be final as between Plaintiffs and Defendants."

2

Id.

3

Section D.3. provides, in relevant part, that with regard to

4

incidents in dispute as presented in the parties' pleadings, the

5

Plaintiffs "shall attempt to resolve these disputes through

6

negotiation with Defendants.

7

may be referred to the Court's expert pursuant to paragraph D.2.,

8

above."

9

If negotiations fail, the disputes

Id.

The Ninth Circuit held that this delegation of authority to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the Court's expert is "impermissible" as it extends "beyond the

11

scope of the duties that may be assigned to a Rule 706 expert."

12

Armstrong, 2014 WL 4783091, at * 10 ("While we have approved the

13

appointment of non-judicial officers to make recommendations and

14

resolve disputes ancillary to complex litigation, those

15

appointments specifically limited the expert to making

16

recommendations subject to review by the district court.").

17
18
19

Accordingly, the Court revises the modified injunction as
follows:
In Section D.2., strike the following sentence:

20

"Administrative decisions made by the Court's expert pursuant to

21

this section shall be final as between Plaintiffs and Defendants"

22

and replace it as follows: "Administrative recommendations made by

23

the Court's expert pursuant to this section shall be reviewable by

24

this Court on a motion by any party dissatisfied with the expert's

25

decision.

26

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the procedure for the

27

review of a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge."

The review shall be conducted pursuant to the

28
2

1

Because Section D.3. derives its meaning from Section D.2., there

2

is no reason to alter its language.
CONCLUSION

3
4

Within seven days of this order, Plaintiffs shall prepare and

5

submit, for the Court’s review, a second modified injunction

6

incorporating these changes.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated:

December 5, 2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3