Valdez et al v. City of San Jose et al
Filing
193
ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING CAUSES OF ACTION. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on July 10, 2013. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
FRANCISCO VALDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No.: 4:09-cv-0176 KAW
ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER
REGARDING CAUSES OF ACTION
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiffs Francisco Valdez, Ricardo Vasquez, Daniel Martinez, and Jamil Stubbs filed
14
this case as a putative class action against the City of San Jose, San Jose Police Chief Robert
15
Davis, and San Jose Police Officers R. Agamau, Martin, Rickert, Wallace, and Orlando.
16
On February 27, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
17
certification and granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
18
The remaining causes of action in the operative second amended complaint are: Fourth
19
Amendment claims against Wallace, Agamau, and Orlando; a Fourteenth Amendment claim
20
against Agamau; § 1985 claims against all Defendants; First, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment
21
claims against Officers Agamau, Martin, Rickert, Wallace, and Orlando; false arrest and battery
22
claims against Wallace, Agamau, Orlando, Rickert, and Martin; and civil conspiracy, negligence,
23
and violations of the Bane Act and Ralph Act against all Defendants.
24
It appears that some of the claims may have survived summary judgment merely because
25
Defendants failed to present adequate arguments to support dismissing some of these claims. See
26
Order Denying Motion For Class Certification; Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion For
27
Summary Judgment, Dkt # 162 at 17, 31:
28
1
Defendants do not appear to have raised any arguments in support of their motion
with respect to Plaintiffs’ First, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment claims or their
§ 1985 claim. Accordingly, they have not met their initial burden and summary
judgment must be denied with respect to these claims . . . Although these claims
remain to be tried, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have not, thus far, provided an
evidentiary basis to support most of these claims . . .
1
2
3
4
5
...
6
Plaintiffs assert claims of false arrest and battery against Wallace, Agamau,
Orlando, Rickert, and Martin. In addition, they charge all Defendants with civil
conspiracy, negligence, and violations of the Bane Act and the Ralph Act . . .
because Defendants present no other arguments or evidence supporting their
motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ state law claims, their motion must be
denied with respect to these claims.
7
8
9
At the May 14, 2013 case management conference, the undersigned told the parties that
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
they should meet and confer regarding the possibility of stipulating to the dismissal of all or some
12
of these claims. The parties have not filed a stipulation or otherwise indicated whether they will
13
agree to dismiss these claims. However, Defendants assert that "the only remaining causes of
14
action are those that Plaintiffs have against Officers Agamau, Wallace, and Orlando." Dkt # 192
15
at 2-3.
16
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and file either: 1) a stipulation
17
dismissing causes of action, or 2) a statement that no additional causes of action will be
18
dismissed, together with a two-page joint brief explaining how the remaining claims against all
19
Defendants affects the outcome of Defendants' pending motion to sever, by July 15, 2013. The
20
hearing on the motion to sever is rescheduled to July 25, 2013, at 11:00 a.m.
21
It is so ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: July 10, 2013
24
25
___________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
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?