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