Hampton et al v. City Of Oakland et al

Filing 94

ORDER re Further Briefing re City of Oakland's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/09/2014. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FRED HAMPTON JR., ET AL.,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING RE
CITY OF OAKLAND’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CITY OF OAKLAND, ET AL.,

15

No. C-13-03094 DMR

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Having considered Defendant City of Oakland’s (“Oakland”) motion for summary judgment

18

(Docket No. 66) and oral argument of counsel at the hearing held on October 9, 2014, the court has

19

determined that further briefing is necessary regarding Plaintiffs Hampton and Lamar’s claims for

20

false imprisonment against Oakland. Specifically, Hampton and Lamar seek to hold Oakland liable

21

for false imprisonment based on a theory of vicarious liability for the actions of Oakland police

22

officers Carter and Ko. The court must consider whether a reasonable jury could find that Hampton

23

and Lamar’s detention ripened into an arrest, requiring probable cause, and if so, the court must

24

analyze the facts that supported probable cause. Counsel for Oakland confirmed that the probable

25

cause analysis for Oakland rests on the exact same facts as those presented by Defendant City of

26

Emeryville (“Emeryville”). However, if the detention was an investigatory stop and not an arrest,

27

the court must determine whether a reasonable jury could find that the stop was not supported by

28

reasonable suspicion. Oakland and Plaintiffs did not explain which set of facts the court may

1

consider in evaluating Oakland’s reasonable suspicion for the stop, and whether there are any facts

2

relied upon by Emeryville that the court may not consider for purposes of Oakland’s liability.

3

Therefore, by no later than October 15, 2014, Oakland shall file a brief that does not exceed

4

five pages addressing this issue, along with any supporting evidence. Plaintiffs’ response shall not

5

exceed five pages and shall be filed by October 20, 2014, along with any supporting evidence.

6

Oakland may file a reply that does not exceed two pages by October 22, 2014.

7
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONNA M. RYU
y
United States Magistrate Judgeu
na M. R

13

on

Judge D

ER

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

A

H

14

LI

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

R NIA

Dated: October 9, 2014

NO

United States District Court

10

FO

UNIT
ED

9

RT
U
O

S

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C