Valdez et al v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 198

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting Defendants leave to file a second Motion for Summary Judgment,denying 185 Motion to Sever without prejudice. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 FRANCISCO VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEVER CLAIMS FOR TRIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.: 4:09-cv-0176 KAW 12 13 14 Plaintiffs Francisco Valdez, Ricardo Vasquez, Daniel Martinez, and Jamil Stubbs filed 15 this case as a putative class action against the City of San Jose, San Jose Police Chief Robert 16 Davis, and San Jose Police Officers Agamau, Martin, Rickert, Wallace, and Orlando. 17 On June 13, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to sever Plaintiffs' claims for trial. The 18 Court held a hearing on the motion on July 25, 2013. Elisa Tolentino and Ardell Johnson 19 appeared for Defendants. Steven Berki appeared for Plaintiffs. 20 During the argument on Defendants' motion to sever, the Court and the parties discussed 21 which causes of action remained in the case after Judge Wilken's February 27, 2013 order on 22 Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The parties agreed that, despite language in the 23 conclusion of the order stating, "Defendants City of San Jose, Chief Davis, Officer Rickert, and 24 Officer Martin are entitled to summary judgment on all claims against them," analysis in the body 25 of the order made it clear that some of the state law claims against these Defendants remained to 26 be tried. 27 28 1 1 However, as discussed in the undersigned's previous order to meet and confer, some of the 2 claims survived summary judgment merely because Defendants failed to present adequate 3 arguments to support granting summary judgment on the claims. See Order Denying Motion For 4 Class Certification; Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion For Summary Judgment, Dkt # 5 162 at 17, 31. At the hearing on the motion to sever, defense counsel explained that they had 6 failed to fully brief their arguments for summary judgment on a number of claims merely because 7 they reached the page limitation set by Judge Wilken, and did not think that a request to exceed 8 the page limit was likely to be granted. 9 In addition, Plaintiffs argued at the hearing that even though they had been unable to successfully oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment on certain federal claims, they 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 could prevail on similar state law claims at trial, because they had obtained or would obtain 12 additional evidence of the City of San Jose's policies or practices concerning officer training. 13 Because there are a number of state law claims in the case that may be resolved through 14 summary judgment, the Court grants Defendants leave to, within 30 days of the date of this order, 15 file a second motion for summary judgment. 16 Because the outcome of the summary judgment motion may affect the severance analysis, 17 Defendants' motion to sever is denied without prejudice. Defendants may move to sever 18 Plaintiffs' claims or re-file their previous motion after the Court rules on their second motion for 19 summary judgment. 20 21 22 23 It is so ORDERED. Dated: July 29, 2013 _________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 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?