Cobine et al v. City of Eureka et al

Filing 20

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS RE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 28, 2016. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

STACY COBINE, NANETTE DEAN,
CHRISTINA RUBLE, LLOYD PARKER,
GERRIANNE SCHULZE, SARAH HOOD,
AARON KANGAS, LYNETTE VERA,
AUBREY SHORT, MARIE ANNTONETTE
KINDER, and JOHN TRAVIS,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. C 16-02239 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS RE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

v.
CITY OF EUREKA, EUREKA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and ANDREW MILLS, in his
official capacity as Chief of Police,

17

Defendants.

18

/

19
20

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

21

OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 29, 2016

22

AT 2:00 P.M.:

23

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

24

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in

25

their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

26

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties

27

submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities

28

only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

1

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on

2

such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this

3

case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.

4
5

The parties shall each have 40 minutes each to address the following questions:
1.

Do Plaintiffs make only an as-applied challenge to the Eureka Municipal Code and not a
facial challenge?

2.

Based on the recent ruling in Acosta v. City of Salinas, 2016 WL 1446781 (N.D. Cal. April
13, 2016), do Plaintiffs maintain that the Notice to Vacate provides insufficient procedural
safeguards or insufficient notice to abrogate Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights?

3.

Plaintiffs contend that the number of unsheltered homeless individuals in the City of Eureka
outnumber the number of available shelter beds and other temporary housing units in the
area roughly by a factor of three to one. (See, e.g., Declaration of Paul Boden at ¶¶ 7, 11, 12;
Declaration of Dr. Barry Zevin at ¶ 18.) Defendants represent that there are sufficient
shelters and temporary housing options to house the current members of the Palco Marsh
community. (See Declaration of Cyndy Day-Wilson at ¶ 22 (citing adoption but not
effectuation of City Resolution to increase available beds to account for Palso Marsh
residents).) The Court notes that the 2015 Point-in-Time Count found that of the 1,319
homeless individuals surveyed, 844 of them, or 64.3% were unsheltered, but it is not clear if
that was by choice or by necessity. (Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. L.)

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

a.

15
16

b.

17
18

The Court requests precise citations to the record for the number of actual
homeless individuals in the Palo Marsh area currently requiring shelter and
the number of currently available shelter beds and other temporary housing
units in the area.
If the parties continue to dispute this question, is the resolution of the issue
more appropriately handled on a full record? Can Eureka delay for several
weeks until the factual issue is fully briefed and presented to the Court?

4.

Plaintiffs also contend that there are restrictions on certain shelters that some homeless
individuals are unable to meet, thereby preventing them from obtaining shelter space even
when the beds may remain unoccupied. Where specifically in the record is there evidence of
this contention?

5.

On the issue of timing for the project, will Eureka be harmed by a delay of several weeks for
enforcement of the Notice to Vacate? Could the parties agree to a hearing on the full
evidentiary record on May 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.?

6.

What is Eureka’s position on the applicability of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act?

7.

Should the Court grant the restraining order, do Defendants contend a bond is necessary?

8.

Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: April 28, 2016
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2