Nava v. Seadler et al

Filing 76

ORDER re 74 Permitting Substitution and Dismissal of Certain Defendants. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 5/10/10. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 5/12/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JON A. HEABERLIN (SBN 199810) R A N K IN , LANDSNESS, LAHDE, S E R V E R IAN & STOCK 96 No. Third Street, Suite 500 San Jose, California 95112 [phone] Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SANTA CLARA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NANCY NAVA, Plaintiff, vs. MIKE SEADLER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; CLYDE CHENG, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer, ALEX TORKE, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; A. WOLF, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; S. MAJOROS, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; T. SHEARER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. FANUCCHI, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; T. NIESEN, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; M. OVER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; DAN WINTER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; A. LANGE, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; R. CIRAULO, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. MASTILOCK, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; A. LAYTON, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. GREEN, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C08 03066 PVT ORDER PERMITTING SUBSTITUTION AND DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

1 O r d e r Perm ittin g Substitution and Dism is s a l of Certain D e f e n d a n ts - Case No. 08-03066 P V T

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

police officer; D. RUSH, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; F. SAUNDERS, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; D. MACHADO, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. OLIVER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; B. STERKEL, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, individually and in their capacities as Santa Clara police officers, the true names and exact numbers of whom are unknown at this time; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation, Defendants.

11 _____________________________ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED, the Court hereby orders: 1. MARK SCHALLER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer, shall be added as a Defendant to this action. Plaintiff's action against Defendant MARK SCHALLER shall not include a claim for punitive or exemplary damages. 2. Defendant MARK SCHALLER shall file a responsive pleading within 14 days

of the entry of this Order. 3. The following Defendants shall be dismissed: ANTHONY LAYTON (sued

herein as "A. LAYTON"), JOE OLIVER (sued herein as "J. OLIVER"), and BRYAN STERKEL (sued herein as "B. STERKEL"). 4. The parties shall continue good faith efforts to dismiss individual defendants

having no direct involvement with the contact at issue alleged by Plaintiff. 5. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff, should she deem in good faith at

a later stage in litigation that there is evidence to suggest one of the officer-defendants enumerated in Paragraph 3 did have direct involvement with her contact at issue, to apply for leave to add that (those) officer(s) back in as Defendants. 6. Plaintiff shall not be required to subpoena dismissed defendants for

2 O r d e r Perm ittin g Substitution and Dism is s a l of Certain D e f e n d a n ts - Case No. 08-03066 P V T

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deposition, but may do so to the extent otherwise appropriate upon Notice.

DATED: 5/10/10

MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

3 O r d e r Perm ittin g Substitution and Dism is s a l of Certain D e f e n d a n ts - Case No. 08-03066 P V T