Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 557

ORDER re 556 granting STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT FOR GEORGE BUTTERWORTH AND AGAINST JOHN TENNISON. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/20/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP ELLIOT R. PETERS - #158708 DANIEL PURCELL - #191424 STEVEN P. RAGLAND - #221076 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] COLEMAN & BALOGH LLP ETHAN A. BALOGH­#172224 255 Kansas Street, Suite 340 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN TENNISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN TENNISON, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRENTICE EARL SANDERS; NAPOLEON HENDRIX, and GEORGE BUTTERWORTH Defendants.

Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT FOR GEORGE BUTTERWORTH AND AGAINST JOHN TENNISON

428906.01

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FOR BUTTERWORTH Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RECITAL On February 2, 2006, this Court granted in part Defendant George Butterworth's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff John Tennison's claims against Butterworth and holding that" t]he only remaining claim against Butterworth is Goff's Brady claim for suppression [ of the Ricard confession. Docket 482 at 93-94; see also Docket 496 (Amended Order re " summary judgment) at 92. Tennison did not pursue an interlocutory appeal of this Court's ruling on summary judgment. Defendants Butterworth, Hendrix, and Sanders did appeal this Court's ruling on summary judgment. Specifically, Butterworth appealed this Court's ruling permitting "Goff's Brady claim for suppression of the Ricard confession to go forward. See Docket 485 (Butterworth Notice of " Appeal) and 490 (Hendrix and Sanders Notice of Appeal). The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in this case on July 12, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. On September 22, 2008, pursuant to a request by Plaintiff Antoine Goff, the Ninth Circuit ordered Butterworth's appeal dismissed, remanded Goff's claims against Butterworth to this Court for the limited purpose of entering judgment against Goff and in favor of Butterworth, and ordered the remaining appeals resubmitted. On September 22, 2008, this Court entered judgment against Goff and in favor of Butterworth. Docket 550. It appears that the Court has not yet entered judgment in favor of Butterworth as to Tennison's claims that were dismissed on February 2, 2006 by this Court's Order regarding summary judgment. Tennison and Butterworth agree that it is appropriate and proper for judgment against Tennison and in favor of Butterworth to be entered. STIPULATION For the forgoing reasons, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree to entry of judgment against Plaintiff John Tennison and for Defendant George 1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FOR BUTTERWORTH Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW

428906.01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Butterworth; The parties further agree that each party shall bear its own costs associated with this action. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: October 16, 2008 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: /s/ Steven P. Ragland STEVEN P. RAGLAND Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN TENNISON Dated: October 16, 2008 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

By: /s/ Christine Van Aken CHRISTINE VAN AKEN Attorneys for Defendant GEORGE BUTTERWORTH

FILER'S ATTESTATION I, Steven P. Ragland, the filer of this document, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

By: /s/ Steven P. Ragland STEVEN P. RAGLAND

2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FOR BUTTERWORTH Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW

428906.01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JUDGMENT GOOD CAUSE showing, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of George Butterworth and against John Tennison on Tennison's entire claim against Butterworth and that each party shall bear his own costs of action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10/21 Dated: _____________, 2008 THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FOR BUTTERWORTH Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW

428906.01