Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page1 of 16

JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 2 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 3 (510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com 4 JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)
5 JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968)
Law Offices of James B. Chanin 6 3050 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California 94705
E-fi 'in9 7 (510) 848-4752; FAX: (510) 848-5819
8 Email: jbcofc@aol.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 Reginald Oliver

FILED
OCT 2 8 2008
oro RICHARD W. WIEKING
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
.'
1. ·.f

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASENoC08-04914 ~ 12 REGINALD OLIVER, individually and on

13 behalf of those persons similarly situated,

14

Plaintiffs,

15 vs.

)

)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,

) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

) ) )

RELIF (Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

16

)

CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION

)

17 CITY OF OAKLAND; KARLA RUSH OR )

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DOE 1, individually and in her capacity as a )

18 police officer for the City of Oakland; DOES )

2-100, inclusive,

)

19

)

Defendants.

)

20

)

)

21 ----------------------------)

22

BA ADR

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page2 of 16

JURISDICTION
2
1. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983. Jurisdiction is based on 3 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343.

4

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

5

2. The claims alleged herein arose in the City of Oakland, State of California.

6 Therefore, venue and assignment lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District

7 of California, San Francisco or Oakland Divisions. 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).

8

PARTIES

9

3. Plaintiff, REGINALD OLIVER, is an African American male.

4. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND is, and at all times herein mentioned 10
was, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of 11
California.
12 5. Defendant KARLA RUSH (hereinafter Defendant RUSH) or DOE 1 was
13 at all times herein mentioned, a Police Officer for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and is sued

14 herein in her individual and official capacities.

15

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued

16 herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious

17 names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when

18 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that
19 each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable for the incident, injuries and 20 damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said defendants proximately caused said incidents,
injuries and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, 21
management or control, battery, violation of constitutional rights, violation of public policy, false
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 2

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page3 of 16

arrests, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty,
2
whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, ownership, 3 entrustment, custody, care or control or upon any other act or omission. Plaintiff will ask leave
4 to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such facts are ascertained.

5

7. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, acted

6 within the course and scope of their employment for the CITY OF OAKLAND.

7

8. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of

8 them, acted under color of authority and/or under color of law.

9

9.

In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of

them, acted as the agent, servant, employee and/or in concert with each of said other defendants 10
herein. 11
STATEMENT OF FACTS 12
10. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and high ranking CITY OF OAKLAND 13
officials have long been on actual notice that members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police
14 Department, particularly those assigned to narcotics and gang units, have repeatedly violated the

15 constitutional rights of citizens by fabricating information in reports, providing false and/or

16 intentionally misleading information in warrant affidavits to the Court and have otherwise cause

17 numerous citizens to be subjected to searches, arrests, imprisonment and malicious prosecutions

18 without probable cause.

19

11. Despite the fact that the City of Oakland agreed to a non-monetary

20 settlement agreement in the case of Delphine Allen, et al. v. City a/Oakland, USDC No. C-OO-

21 4599 TEH, otherwise known as "The Riders" litigation, which was intended to redress and prevent a recurrence of a pattern and practice of such abuses and constitutional violations by
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 3

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page4 of 16

drug and gang officers in the Oakland Police Department, the CITY OF OAKLAND has
2
repeatedly failed fully implement and enforce said settlement agreement, and worse, it now 3 appears that numerous members of the defendant CITY OF OAKLAND's Police Department 4 have continued to engage in customs, policies, patterns and practices of fabricating information
5 in reports, providing false and/or intentionally misleading information in warrant affidavits to the

6 Court and have otherwise continued to cause numerous citizens to be subjected to searches,

7 arrests, imprisonments and malicious prosecutions without probable cause.

8

12. In particular, plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

9 members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, including, but not limited to,

defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, have individually 10
and/or while acting in concert with one another, engaged in a repeated pattern and practice of 11
providing false or misleading information in police reports, warrant affidavits, testimony and/or 12
in other writings and/or verbal statements in order to cause the false arrest, false imprisonment 13
and/or malicious prosecution of numerous individuals, including, but not limited to, the plaintiff,
14 REGINALD OLIVER and class members described below.

15

13. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that said

16 customs, policies, patterns and/or practices are the product of a culture of tolerance in the CITY

17 OF OAKLAND Police Department in which the end result, i.e., an arrest and/or prosecution, by

18 any means necessary (whether lawful or unlawful) has become more important than ensuring

19 that the Constitution and legal processes are followed by members of the Oakland Police

20 Department.

21

14. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a

matter of official policy -- rooted in an entrenched posture of deliberate indifference to the
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 4

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page5 of 16

constitutional rights of primarily the minority citizens who live, visit and/or travel within 2 Oakland neighborhoods in particular -- defendant CITY OF OAKLAND has long allowed 3 citizens, such as the plaintiff and the class members herein, to be abused by its police officers,
4 including by defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE I and/or DOES 2-50 and/or by each of them,

5 individually and/or while acting in concert with one another.

6

15. As a result of the pre-existing customs, policies, patterns and/or practices

7 of such abuses by members of defendant CITY OF OAKLAND's Police Department, plaintiff,
8 REGINALD OLIVER and the class members described in this Complaint, were subjected to the
violation of their constitutional rights as alleged herein. 9
16. Specifically with respect to plaintiff REGINALD OLIVER, plaintiff is 10
informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or 11
DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as 12
members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the 13
Alameda Superior Court without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading
14 statements made in bad faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of
15 them.

16

17. Thereafter, plaintiff OLIVER was subjected to an unreasonable search and

17 seizure on or about March 8, 2008, when members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police

18 Department used said warrant to enter a residence located at or about 619 Douglas Avenue in

19 Oakland, California, where the plaintiff was located.

20

18. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, the plaintiff was

arrested without reasonable or probable cause. The plaintiff was thereafter imprisoned in jail 21
without reasonable or probable cause until he was able to post bail. The plaintiff was thereafter 22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 5

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page6 of 16

maliciously prosecuted on criminal charges in Alameda Superior Court as a direct result of the 2
illegally obtained warrant.

3

19. Eventually, on or about October 6, 2008, plaintiff is informed and believes

4 and thereon alleges that the malicious charges were dismissed after the Alameda County District

5 Attorney's Office discovered that the warrant was obtained illegally by defendant KARLA

6 RUSH or DOE 1 and/or by DOES 2-50, individually and/or while acting in concert with one

7 another.

8

20. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that plaintiff,

9 and all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result 0
customs, policies, patterns and/or practices of Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, 10
and each of them, including, but not limited to, deliberate indifference in the hiring, supervision, 11
training, and discipline of members of the Oakland Police Department, including, but not limited 12
to, defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them. 13
21. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that he, and
14 all persons similarly situated to him, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as allege

15 herein as a result of customs, policies and/or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND,

16 DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, including customs, policies and/or practices of failing to

17 fully and/or fairly investigate complaints of misconduct against its police officers; of failing to

18 appropriately monitor or otherwise track complaints of misconduct against its police officers so

19 that appropriate and timely disciplinary action and/or training could be taken when officer(s)
20 were shown to have a history of complaints; and/or of failing to promptly remove or terminate officers who repeatedly violated the rights of citizens and/or engaged in the type of misconduct
21 alleged herein.
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 6

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page7 of 16

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 2 aforementioned incidents were caused by the deliberate indifference of the CITY OF 3 OAKLAND, Defendants 51-100, and/or other high ranking Police Department officials and/or 4 supervisors, with regard to the need for more or different training and/or supervision and/or
5 discipline of its police officers, including, but not limited to, defendants KARLA RUSH or DOE

6 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

7

23. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that he, and

8 all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result of
9 customs, policies, or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, individually and/or acting in concert with one another, including, but not limited to,
10 customs, policies or practices which encouraged, authorized or condoned false arrests,
11 fabrication of evidence, falsification of police reports, false and/or misleading warrant affidavits
12 and/or other misconduct which foreseeably would result in the violation of the rights of citizens.
13 24. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that he, and
14 all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result of
15 customs, policies or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, individually

16 and/or acting in concert with one another, including, but not limited to, a custom, policy or

17 practice of failing to stop or prevent ongoing acts of misconduct by certain members of its police

18 department, including, but not limited to, defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1, DOES 2-50

19 and/or each of them.

20

25. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that he, and

all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result of 21
customs, policies or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, individually 22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 7

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page8 of 16

and/or acting in concert with one another, including, but not limited to, a custom, policy or
2
practice of failing to uphold and enforce remedies that defendants already agreed to adopt to 3 prevent such ongoing abuses by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department in the
4 Delphine Allen v. City ofOakland (The Riders) Litigation.

5

26. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that high

6 ranking CITY OF OAKLAND officials, including, but not limited to defendants DOES 51-100,

7 and/or other high ranking police department officials and/or supervisors, knew and/or reasonably

8 should have known of the custom, policies, patterns and/or practices of misconduct by the

9 individual police officer Defendants herein, KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-100

and/or by each of them, and failed to take any or appropriate remedial action prior to the subject 10
incident. 11
27. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that 12
defendants DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, tacitly or directly ratified, approved, condoned
13 and/or otherwise encouraged a pattern, practice, custom or policy of misconduct and/or civil
14 rights violations by defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

15

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16

28. Plaintiff seeks class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2)

17 to allege claims for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and all

18 persons similarly situated. The proposed class consists of all persons who were subjected to

19 searches, seizures, arrests, imprisonments and/or malicious prosecutions based on false and/or 20 misleading information contained in CITY OF OAKLAND police reports, warrant affidavits 21 and/or other testimony and/or writings used to obtain search and/or arrest warrants from

22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 8

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page9 of 16

California Courts by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department since the 2 adoption of the non-monetary settlement agreement in Delphine Allen v. City ofOakland.

3

29. This case satisfies the prerequisites of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action.

4

30. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

5 Plaintiff does not know the identities or exact number of all class members. Based on newspaper

6 accounts, it appears that at least 12 members of the City of Oakland Police Department were
7 pulled from street duty by the Oakland Police Department in connection with this latest scandal
8 and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office has not yet determined the exact number of 9 cases it intends to move to dismiss as a result of the false and/or misleading information given by
Oakland Police Department officers to the Court in procuring warrants. Therefore, the size of 10
the class is likely to be large given the number of officers involved. 11
31. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the class, 12
because all class members have been adversely affected by the challenged actions of the 13 defendants. Common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: whether defendant 14 KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 andlor DOES 2-50 andlor each of them engaged in a custom, policy,
15 pattern and/or practice of fabricating police reports, making false and/or misleading statements i
16 procuring warrants from the Courts and/or otherwise causing the plaintiff and class members to

17 be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrests, false imprisonments and/or
18 malicious prosecutions; whether the defendants' conduct was motivated by racial animus or bias, 19 whether defendant CITY OF OAKLAND maintained customs, policies, patterns and practices 20 which caused and/or contributed to the violation of the plaintiffs' rights; and whether the CITY
OF OAKLAND, its police department and/or city officials and/or supervisors failed to properly 21

22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 9

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page10 of 16

train and supervise members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department which caused
2 and/or contributed to the violation of the plaintiffs' rights.

3

32. The claims of the named plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.

4 The claims of the class members arise from the same type of conduct, customs, policies or

5 practices that have resulted in damages to the class representatives and are based on the same

6 legal theories.

7

33. The representative plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests

8 of the class because he is, and was, subject to the policies, customs, patterns and practices

complained of herein, and has no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. In 9
addition, plaintiffs counsel are experienced in litigating federal civil rights cases and class 10
actions, including federal civil rights actions against the CITY OF OAKLAND and the CITY OF 11
OAKLAND Police Department. 12
34. The defendants have acted and/or have failed to act on grounds generally
13 applicable to the class, and an award of damages, injunctive and declaratory relief for the class as

14 a whole is appropriate.

15

35. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

16 would create a risk of inconsistent or incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants,

17 thereby making a class action the superior method of adjudicating the controversy.

18

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES AND RELIEF SOUGHT

19

36. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of defendants as alleged in this

20 Complaint, plaintiff, and those persons similarly situated, and each of them, suffered damages
and/or injuries, including, but not limited to, pain, suffering and emotional distress, in amounts to 21
be determined according to proof.
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 10

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page11 of 16

37. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of defendants as alleged in this 2 Complaint, plaintiff, and those persons similarly situated, and each of them, suffered special 3 damages or may suffer special damages in the future, including, but not limited to, lost wages, 4 criminal defense attorneys' fees and costs, bail bond expenses and/or other out of pocket losses
5 to be determined according to proof.

6

38. Plaintiff and the class members will also be entitled to recover their

7 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to their general and compensatory damages

8 pursuant to statute.

9

39. The conduct of defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-100

and/or each of them, was intentional, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent and/or done with a 10

conscious and/or reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiff and the 11
class members will be entitled to recover punitive damages in amounts to be determined

12 according to proof.

13

40. Defendants' policies, practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein

14 have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to plaintiff and the class members,

15 including but not limited to violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiff and

16 class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs

17 described herein. The plaintiff and class members intend in the future to exercise their

18 constitutional rights in the vicinity of the City of Oakland and in other public places in the City

19 of Oakland. Defendants' conduct described herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty

among plaintiffs with respect to their ability to exercise their constitutional rights in the present 20
and future, and with respect to their liberty, privacy, physical security and safety. Defendants' 21
conduct described herein has also created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs and clas 22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 11

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page12 of 16

members with respect to their exercise of their right to move freely about the public streets, in
2 their own homes and/or in the homes of friends and/or relatives without being subjected to
3 unreasonable searches and seizures and/or discriminatory and disparate treatment due to their
4 ethnicity and/or race.

5

41. Plaintiff and the class therefore seek injunctive relief from this court, to

6 ensure that plaintiff and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of their rights from

7 defendants' illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and practices as described herein.

8

42. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff, the class members and

defendants in that plaintiff and the class contends that the policies, practices and conduct of 9

defendants alleged herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas plaintiff and the class 10
members are informed and believe that defendants contend that said policies, practices and 11
conduct are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of rights with respect to this

12 controversy.

13

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)

16

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS KARLA RUSH, DOES 1-50)

17

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges herein Paragraphs 1

18 through 42.

19

44. In doing the acts complained of herein, defendants KARLA RUSH or

20 DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, did act under color of state law to deprive

plaintiff, the class members and/or each of them as alleged heretofore of certain constitutionally 21
protected rights, including, but not limited to:
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 12

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page13 of 16

(a) the right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures;

2

(b) the right to equal protection of the law; and/or

3

(c) the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

4

45. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth

5 Amendments to the United States Constitution.

6

46. As a result of the violation of their constitutional rights by defendants

7 KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, plaintiffs, the class members

8 and/or each of them sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged heretofore in this

Complaint. 9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class members pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. 10
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 11
(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)
12 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100)

13

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges herein Paragraphs 1

14 through 46.

15

48. As against Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 51-100 and/or

16 each of them, individually and/or in their capacities as official policy-maker(s) for the CITY OF

17 OAKLAND, the plaintiff and class members further allege that the acts and/or omissions alleged
18 in the Complaint herein are indicative and representative of a repeated course of conduct by 19 members of defendant CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department tantamount to a custom, policy 20 or repeated practice of condoning and tacitly encouraging the abuse of police authority, and
disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens, such as plaintiffs. 21

22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 13

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page14 of 16

49. Plaintiff and class members are further informed and believe and thereon 2 allege that the acts and/or omissions alleged herein are the proximate result of a custom, policy, 3 pattern or practice of deliberate indifference by defendant CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100 4 and/or each of them, to the repeated violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by CITY
5 OF OAKLAND police officers, which have included, but are not limited to, repeated acts of

6 making false reports, providing false and/or misleading information in the procurement of
7 warrants, causing arrests, imprisonments and/or malicious prosecutions based on fabricated
8 and/or misleading statements and/or engaging in similar acts of misconduct on a repeated basis. 50. Plaintiff and class members are further informed and believe and thereon
9 allege that the damages sustained as alleged herein were the proximate result customs, policies
10 and/or practices which included, but were not limited to, the failure to adequately or
11 appropriately hold officers accountable for their misconduct, the failure to properly and fairly
12 investigate complaints about officers' misconduct, the failure to enact or adopt policies to ensure
13 adequate and/or appropriate oversight of officers to prevent continuing violations of the rights of
14 citizens, the failure to fully implement and enforce the non-monetary settlement agreement in the
15 Delphine Allen v. City ofOakland (the Riders) Litigation which was intended to redress the same
16 or similar unconstitutional conduct that occurred in the instant case, the failure to properly train

17 and/or discipline officers, the failure to adequately or properly supervise officers, the failure to

18 adopt and fully implement an appropriate early warning system, policies and customs which 19 encouraged officers to target certain groups of citizens for unreasonable search and seizure 20 and/or other customs, and/or policies which caused and/or contributed to, the violation of the
rights of citizens by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. 21

22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 14

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page15 of 16

51. The aforementioned deliberate indifference, customs, policies or practices
2 of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, resulted in the 3 deprivation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff and class members, including, but not

4 limited to, the following:

5

(a) the right not to be deprived of liberty or property without Due Process of Law;

6

(b) the right to be free from unreasonable searches and/or seizures; and/or,

7

(c) the right to equal protection of the law.

8

52. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. 9

53. As a result of the violation of their constitutional rights by defendants 10

CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, plaintiffs and the class
11 members and/or each of them, sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged heretofore in this

12
Complaint.

13

WHEREFORE, plaintiff and class members pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

14

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

15

54. Plaintiff and class members hereby demand a jury trial.

16

PRAYER

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and class members pray for judgment against defendants, and

18 each of them, as follows:

19

1. For an order certifying the class defined herein pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and

20 (b)(2);
2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining defendants from engaging
21
in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions complained of above; 22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 15

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document1 Filed10/28/08 Page16 of 16

3. For a declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct complained of herein was a

2 violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and California;

3

4. For the individual named plaintiffs, general and compensatory damages to be

4 detennined according to proof;

5

5. For punitive and exemplary damages in amounts to be detennined according to proof

6 as to the individual defendants;

7

6. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or other authorities in amounts to

8 be detennined according to proof;
7. For costs of suit; 9
8. For pre- and post-judgment interest as pennitted by law; 10
9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 11
CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 12
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the
13 named parties, there is no such interest to report.
14

15 Dated: October2?, 2008

16
17 Dated: October .ll, 2008

18

19

20

21

22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 16

 </s> Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page1 of 38

1 JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888)

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

2 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621

3 (510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882

Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

4

JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)

5 JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968)

Law Offices of James B. Chanin

6 3050 Shattuck Avenue

Berkeley, California 94705

7 (510) 848-4752; FAX: (510) 848-5819

Email: jbcofc@aol.com

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 REGINALD OLIVER; JOSEPH BATIESTE, )

JR.; ANTOINETTE MCCULLOUGH;

) CASE NO: C08-04914 TEH

12 DELANDRO BROWN; DANNIE CARTER, )

SR.; LAWRENCE GRAHAM; MESIAH ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

13 SHAW; NEDYA SHAW; GRACE

)

FOSTER; DANNIE CARTER, JR.;

)

14 NICOLE JACKSON, individually and as )

DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIF
(Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

guardian ad litem for N.O., a minor;

)

15 ANTHONY BIGGINS; RICKETA LYNN )

MATTHEWS; CHERYL HOPKINS;

)

CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION

16 TRAVIS HOPKINS; DANIEL CASEY; )

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HUMBERTO TORRES; individually and on )

17 behalf of those persons similarly situated, )

)

18

Plaintiffs,

)

)

19 vs.

)

)

20 CITY OF OAKLAND; KARLA RUSH OR )

DOE 1, individually and in her capacity as a )

21 police officer for the City of Oakland; DOES )

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 1

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page2 of 38

1 2-100, inclusive, Defendants.
2 )
3

4

1.

) ) )
JURISDICTION
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983. Jurisdiction is based on

5 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343.

6

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7

2. The claims alleged herein arose in the City of Oakland, State of California.

8 Therefore, venue and assignment lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District

9 of California, San Francisco or Oakland Divisions. 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).

10
11
12
13 female.
14
15
16

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, REGINALD OLIVER, is an African American male. 4. Plaintiff, JOSEPH BATIESTE, JR., is an African American male. 5. Plaintiff, ANTOINETTE MCCULLOUGH, is an African American
6. Plaintiff, DELANDRO BROWN, is an African American male. 7. Plaintiff, DANNIE CARTER, SR., is an African American male. 8. Plaintiff, LAWRENCE GRAHAM, is an African American male.

17

9. Plaintiff, MESIAH SHAW, is an African American male.

18

10. Plaintiff, NEDYA SHAW, is an African American female.

19

11. Plaintiff, GRACE FOSTER, is an African American female.

20

12. Plaintiff, DANNIE CARTER, JR., is an African American male.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 2

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page3 of 38

1 13. Plaintiff, NICOLE JACKSON, is an African American female. She
2 brings this action individually, and on behalf of her minor daughter, N.O., an African 3 American female.

4

14. Plaintiff, ANTHONY BIGGINS, is an African American male.

5

15. Plaintiff, RICKETA LYNN MATTHEWS, is an African American

6 female.

7

16. Plaintiff, CHERYL HOPKINS, is an African American female.

8

17. Plaintiff, TRAVIS HOPKINS, is an African American male.

18. Plaintiff, DANIEL CASEY, is an African American male. 9

19. Plaintiff, HUMBERTO TORRES, is an Hispanic male. 10
20. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND is, and at all times herein mentioned 11
was, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

12 California.

13

21. Defendant KARLA RUSH (hereinafter Defendant RUSH) or DOE 1 was

14 at all times herein mentioned, a Police Officer for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and is sued

15 herein in her individual and official capacities.

16

22. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued

17 herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious

18 names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when 19 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that 20 each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable for the incident, injuries and
damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said defendants proximately caused said incidents, 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 3

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page4 of 38

1 injuries and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision,
2 management or control, battery, violation of constitutional rights, violation of public policy, false 3 arrests, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, 4 whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, ownership,

5 entrustment, custody, care or control or upon any other act or omission. Plaintiff will ask leave

6 to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such facts are ascertained.

7

23. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, acted

8 within the course and scope of their employment for the CITY OF OAKLAND.

24. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of 9

them, acted under color of authority and/or under color of law. 10
25. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of 11
them, acted as the agent, servant, employee and/or in concert with each of said other defendants

12 herein.

13

STATEMENT OF FACTS

14

26. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and high ranking CITY OF OAKLAND

15 officials have long been on actual notice that members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police

16 Department, particularly those assigned to narcotics and gang units, have repeatedly violated the

17 constitutional rights of citizens by fabricating information in reports, providing false and/or

18 intentionally misleading information in warrant affidavits to the Court and have otherwise caused 19 numerous citizens to be subjected to searches, arrests, imprisonment and malicious prosecutions 20 without probable cause.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 4

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page5 of 38

1 27. Despite the fact that the City of Oakland agreed to a non-monetary
2 settlement agreement in the case of Delphine Allen, et al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-003 4599 TEH, otherwise known as “The Riders” litigation, which was intended to redress and
4 prevent a recurrence of a pattern and practice of such abuses and constitutional violations by
5 drug and gang officers in the Oakland Police Department, the CITY OF OAKLAND has
6 repeatedly failed fully implement and enforce said settlement agreement, and worse, it now
7 appears that numerous members of the defendant CITY OF OAKLAND’s Police Department 8 have continued to engage in customs, policies, patterns and practices of fabricating information
in reports, providing false and/or intentionally misleading information in warrant affidavits to the 9
Court and have otherwise continued to cause numerous citizens to be subjected to searches, 10
arrests, imprisonments and malicious prosecutions without probable cause. 11
28. In particular, plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at 12
least eleven (11) members, if not more, of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, 13 including, but not limited to, defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or 14 each of them, have individually and/or while acting in concert with one another, engaged in a 15 repeated pattern and practice of providing false or misleading information in police reports,
16 warrant affidavits, testimony and/or in other writings and/or verbal statements in order to cause
17 the false arrest, false imprisonment and/or malicious prosecution of numerous individuals and/or
18 condoned such activities as supervisors and/or managers of said officers who engaged in
19 said misconduct. As a result thereof, the named plaintiffs, REGINALD OLIVER, JOSEPH 20 BATIESTE, JR., ANTOINETTE MCCULLOUGH, DELANDRO BROWN, DANNIE
CARTER, SR., LAWRENCE GRAHAM, MESIAH SHAW, NEDYA SHAW; GRACE 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 5

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page6 of 38

1 FOSTER; DANNIE CARTER, JR.; NICOLE JACKSON, individually and as guardian ad
2 litem for N.O., a minor; ANTHONY BIGGINS; RICKETA LYNN MATTHEWS; 3 CHERYL HOPKINS; TRAVIS HOPKINS; DANIEL CASEY; HUMBERTO TORRES 4 and the class members described below were subjected to the violation of their constitutional

5 rights as a result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants RUSH and/or DOES 2-50

6 and/or each of them.

7

29. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that said

8 customs, policies, patterns and/or practices are the product of a culture of tolerance in the CITY
OF OAKLAND Police Department in which the end result, i.e., an arrest and/or prosecution, by 9
any means necessary (whether lawful or unlawful) has become more important than ensuring 10
that the Constitution and legal processes are followed by members of the Oakland Police 11
Department. 12
30. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that as a
13 matter of official policy -- rooted in an entrenched posture of deliberate indifference to the
14 constitutional rights of primarily African American and other minority citizens who live, visit

15 and/or travel within Oakland neighborhoods in particular -- defendant CITY OF OAKLAND has

16 long allowed citizens, such as the plaintiffs and the class members herein, to be abused by its

17 police officers, including by defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or by

18 each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another.

19

31. As a result of the pre-existing customs, policies, patterns and/or practices

20 of such abuses by members of defendant CITY OF OAKLAND’s Police Department, plaintiffs REGINALD OLIVER, JOSEPH BATIESTE, JR., ANTOINETTE MCCULLOUGH,
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 6

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page7 of 38

1 DELANDRO BROWN, DANNIE CARTER, SR., LAWRENCE GRAHAM, MESIAH SHAW,
2 NEDYA SHAW; GRACE FOSTER; DANNIE CARTER, JR.; NICOLE JACKSON, 3 individually and as guardian ad litem for N.O., a minor; ANTHONY BIGGINS; 4 RICKETA LYNN MATTHEWS; CHERYL HOPKINS; TRAVIS HOPKINS; DANIEL

5 CASEY; HUMERTO TORRES and the class members described in this Complaint, were

6 subjected to the violation of their constitutional rights as alleged herein.

7

PLAINTIFF REGINALD OLIVER

8

32. Specifically with respect to plaintiff REGINALD OLIVER, plaintiff is

informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or 9
DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as 10
members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the 11
Alameda Superior Court without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading 12
statements made in bad faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of
13 them.

14

33. Thereafter, plaintiff OLIVER was subjected to an unreasonable search and

15 seizure on or about March 8, 2008, when members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police

16 Department used said warrant to enter a residence located at or about 619 Douglas Avenue in

17 Oakland, California, where the plaintiff was located.

18

34. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, the plaintiff was

19 arrested without reasonable or probable cause. The plaintiff was thereafter imprisoned in jail

20 without reasonable or probable cause until he was able to post bail. The plaintiff was thereafter

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 7

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page8 of 38

1 maliciously prosecuted on criminal charges in Alameda Superior Court as a direct result of the
2 illegally obtained warrant.

3

35. Eventually, on or about October 6, 2008, plaintiff is informed and believes

4 and thereon alleges that the malicious charges were dismissed after the Alameda County District

5 Attorney’s Office discovered that the warrant was obtained illegally by defendant KARLA

6 RUSH or DOE 1 and/or by DOES 2-50, individually and/or while acting in concert with one

7 another.

8

36. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure,

Plaintiff OLIVER was unable to work and lost income in amounts to be determined according to 9

proof. 10
37. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure, 11
Plaintiff OLIVER, suffered damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be

12 determined according to proof.

13

PLAINTIFFS JOSEPH BATIESTE, JR. AND ANTOINETTE MCCULLOUGH

14

38. Plaintiffs JOSEPH BATIESTE, JR. and ANTOINETTE MCCULLOUGH

15 are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or

16 DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as

17 members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the

18 Alameda Superior Court without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading 19 statements made in bad faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of 20 them.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 8

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page9 of 38

1 39. Thereafter, Plaintiffs BATIESTE and/or MCCULLOUGH and/or each of
2 them, was/were subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure on or about January 29, 2008, 3 when members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department used said warrant to enter a 4 residence located at or about 6454 MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland, California, where the

5 plaintiffs were located.

6

40. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, said plaintiffs and/or

7 each of them was/were arrested without reasonable or probable cause. Said plaintiffs and/or
8 each of them, was/were thereafter imprisoned in jail without reasonable or probable cause until
Plaintiff BATIESTE was able to post bail and Plaintiff MCCULLOUGH was released on her 9
own recognizance. The plaintiffs and/or each of them, are informed and believe and thereon 10
allege that they were thereafter maliciously prosecuted on criminal charges in Alameda Superior 11
Court as a direct result of the illegally obtained warrant. 12
41. Eventually, on or about November 7, 2008, plaintiffs are informed and 13 believe and thereon allege that the malicious charges were dismissed after the Alameda County
14 District Attorney’s Office discovered that the warrant was obtained illegally by defendant
15 KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or by DOES 2-50, individually and/or while acting in concert

16 with one another.

17

42. At the time of said unreasonable search and seizure, Plaintiff

18 MCCULLOUGH was subjected to unreasonable and excessive force when she was thrown to the 19 floor of her home by a CITY OF OAKLAND Police Officer (Defendant DOE 2) and suffered 20 emotional distress and embarrassment due to the fact that her body was not completely covered
by her night clothing. Another CITY OF OAKLAND Police Officer (Defendant DOE 3) 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 9

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page10 of 38

1 subjected Plaintiff MCCULLOUGH to excessive force when he put his knee into the Plaintiff’s
2 back while she was on the floor. Plaintiff MCCULLOUGH suffered additional pain, suffering 3 and emotional distress due to the fact that the handcuffs were too tight around her wrists and 4 interfered with the circulation in her hands and wrists.

5

43. Due to his arrest and imprisonment without probable cause, Plaintiff

6 BATIESTE was unable to work and lost income as a result thereof in amounts to be determined

7 according to proof.

8

44. As a result of the unreasonable search and seizure at the home of Plaintiff

MCCULLOUGH, personal property and/or monies belonging to the Plaintiffs was damaged, 9
destroyed and/or was taken by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department 10
involved in the search and seizure, including, but not limited to, Defendant KARLA RUSH or 11
DOE 1, DOES 2-50 and/or each of them. 12
45. As a result of the unreasonable search and seizure stemming from the
13 illegally obtained warrant, Plaintiff MCCULLOUGH’s home was left in an unsecured state

14 following her arrest and personal property belonging to the Plaintiff was stolen from her

15 residence, including, but not limited to, irreplaceable photographs and mementos of Plaintiff

16 MCCULLOUGH’s deceased husband.

17

46. As a further result of the unreasonable search and seizure caused by the

18 illegally obtained warrant, Plaintiff MCCULLOUGH was forced to move from her residence and

19 incurred special damages as a result of having to move from her home.

20

47. Due to the fact that the police took $217.00 from Plaintiff BATIESTE at

the time of this arrest, he was unable to pay the rental charge on a storage unit where he 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 10

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page11 of 38

1 maintained his tools and equipment for his employment and as a result, said tools were taken
2 and/or disposed of by the storage company, resulting in damages to Plaintiff BATIESTE for the 3 loss of the tools in an amount to be determined according to proof.

4

48. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure,

5 Plaintiffs BATIESTE and/or MCCULLOUGH and/or each of them, suffered damages for pain,

6 suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to proof.

7

PLAINTIFF DELANDRO BROWN

8

49. Plaintiff DELANDRO BROWN is informed and believes and thereon

alleges that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, 9

individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as members of the CITY OF 10
OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the Alameda Superior Court 11
without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading statements made in bad

12 faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them.

13

50. As a result of said illegal warrant, Plaintiff DELANDRO BROWN is

14 informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about July 10, 2008, he was arrested

15 without reasonable or probable cause when a car in which he was a passenger was stopped by

16 members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department (Defendants DOES 4-50 and/or each

17 of them).

18

51. Despite the fact that there was no reasonable or probable cause to arrest

19 Plaintiff DELANDRO BROWN, Plaintiff was handcuffed and imprisoned in jail without

20 reasonable or probable cause until he was able to post $5,000.00 in bail.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 11

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page12 of 38

1 52. Thereafter, Plaintiff DELANDRO BROWN is informed and believes and
2 thereon alleges that no criminal charges were filed against him as a result of this incident. As a 3 result, on or about September 2, 2008, Plaintiff BROWN obtained an Order from the Alameda 4 Superior Court sealing and destroying his record of arrest as a result of this incident.

5

53. As a result of the unreasonable search and seizure, Plaintiff DELANDRO

6 BROWN incurred damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be

7 determined according to proof.

8

54. Following this incident, Plaintiff DELANDRO BROWN filed an Internal

Affairs Complaint with Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. Plaintiff is 9

informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND has failed to 10
take any or appropriate remedial action as a result of this incident and/or otherwise ratified, 11
approved and/or encouraged the unreasonable searches and/or seizures by Defendants KARLA

12 RUSH or DOE 1, DOES 4-50 and/or each of them.

13

DANNIE CARTER, SR.; DANNIE CARTER, JR. and GRACE FOSTER

14

55. Plaintiffs DANNIE CARTER, SR., DANNIE CARTER, JR., and/or

15 GRACE FOSTER, and/or each of them are informed and believe and thereon allege that

16 defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or

17 while acting in concert with one another as members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police

18 Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the Alameda Superior Court without probable 19 cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading statements made in bad faith by defendant 20 RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 12

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page13 of 38

1 56. Plaintiffs DANNIE CARTER, SR., DANNIE CARTER, JR., and/or
2 GRACE FOSTER and/or each of them, are informed and believe and thereon allege that said 3 illegally obtained warrant was issued for Apartment 6 of 1055 72nd Avenue in Oakland, 4 California (the residence of Plaintiff GRACE FOSTER) based on the sworn affidavit of

5 Defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 that contained intentionally false and/or misleading

6 statements made in bad faith.

7

57. Despite the fact that the warrant was issued specifically for Unit 6, of

8 1055 72nd Avenue, Plaintiffs DANNIE CARTER, SR. DANNIE CARTER, JR., and/or

GRACE FOSTER and/or each of them, are informed and believe and thereon allege that 9
Defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, intentionally 10
entered the homes of both GRACE FOSTER (Unit 6 of 1055 72nd Avenue) and Plaintiff 11
CARTER, SR., which was located at Apartment 8 of 1055 72nd Avenue in Oakland, California, 12
on or about July 16, 2008 based on the same warrant which Plaintiffs are informed and
13 believe and thereon allege was based on intentionally false and/or misleading information

14 submitted by Defendant RUSH to the Court.

15

58. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that

16 despite entering both Units 6 and 8 of 1055 72nd Avenue with the single warrant issued for

17 Unit 6, Defendant RUSH falsely claimed that she “mistakenly” wrote the number “6” on

18 her warrant affidavit instead of the number “8” and that she actually intended to obtain

19 the warrant for Unit 8.

20

59. As a result of the unreasonable search and seizure caused by Defendant

KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, Plaintiffs DANNIE 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 13

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page14 of 38

1 CARTER, SR., DANNIE CARTER, JR., and/or GRACE FOSTER and/or each of them,
2 were detained and/or arrested without reasonable or probable cause.

3

60. As a result of the unreasonable search and seizure caused by Defendant

4 KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, personal property of the

5 Plaintiffs and/or each of them, was damaged, destroyed and/or seized by KARLA RUSH or

6 DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, during the course of the search.

7

61. During said incident, Plaintiff GRACE FOSTER further alleges that

8 a male CITY OF OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER (DOES 2-50), kicked and stomped on

her dog without any reasonable justification. 9

62. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff GRACE FOSTER was issued a 10
citation which was not based on probable cause and was the product of the aforesaid illegal 11
search and seizure. To date, Plaintiff FOSTER is informed and believes and thereon

12 alleges that no charges have been filed against her as a result of this incident.

13

63. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff DANNIE CARTER, SR. was

14 imprisoned without reasonable or probable cause from approximately July 16, 2008, until

15 approximately October 17, 2008. In addition, Plaintiff DANNIE CARTER, SR. is informed and

16 believes and thereon alleges that he was maliciously prosecuted on charges stemming from the

17 illegally obtained warrant.

18

64. Thereafter, Plaintiff DANNIE CARTER, SR. is informed and believes and

19 thereon alleges that the criminal charges were eventually dismissed and he was not convicted of

20 having committed any crime as a result of this incident.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 14

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page15 of 38

1 65. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff DANNIE CARTER, JR. was also
2 arrested and imprisoned without probable cause and was subjected to a malicious 3 prosecution and/or parole revocation proceedings as a result of the acts and/or omissions of 4 Defendant KARLA RUSH and/or DOES 1-50 and/or each of them. Eventually, the

5 malicious prosecution and/or parole revocation proceedings brought against Plaintiff

6 DANNIE CARTER, JR. as a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant KARLA

7 RUSH and/or DOES 1-50 and/or each of them were dismissed and Plaintiff DANNIE

8 CARTER, JR. was released from custody on or about December 16, 2008.
66. As a result of the unreasonable search and seizure caused by Defendant 9
KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them, Plaintiff DANNIE CARTER, 10
SR. became homeless when he was evicted from his home while he was in jail and all of his 11
personal property that was in his home at the time of his arrest was take and/or otherwise 12
disposed of by his landlord. As a result of the loss of his home and personal property, Plaintiff
13 DANNIE CARTER, SR. incurred general and special damages in amounts to be determined
14 according to proof.

15

67. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, Plaintiffs DANNIE

16 CARTER, SR., DANNIE CARTER, JR., and/or GRACE FOSTER and/or each of them,

17 suffered damages, including, but not limited to, property damage and/or property loss, pain,

18 suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to proof.

19

PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE GRAHAM, MESIAH SHAW AND NEDYA SHAW

20

68. Plaintiffs LAWRENCE GRAHAM and/or MESIAH SHAW and/or

NEDYA SHAW and/or each of them, are informed and believe and thereon allege that 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 15

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page16 of 38

1 defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or
2 while acting in concert with one another as members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 3 Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the Alameda Superior Court without probable

4 cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading statements made in bad faith by defendant

5 RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them.

6

69. Thereafter, Plaintiffs LAWRENCE GRAHAM and/or MESIAH SHAW

7 and/or NEDYA SHAW and/or each of them was/were subjected to an unreasonable search and

8 seizure on or about January 25, 2008, when members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department used said warrant to enter a residence located at or about 1075 70th Avenue in
9
Oakland, California, where the plaintiffs were located. 10
70. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, the plaintiffs were 11
handcuffed and detained without reasonable or probable cause during the search of the premises. 12
Thereafter, plaintiff MESIAH SHAW was arrested and imprisoned in jail as a result of the
13 aforesaid illegal warrant. Eventually, Plaintiff MESIAH SHAW was released from jail and was
14 never convicted of any criminal charges as result of this incident.

15

71. Subsequently, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that

16 Defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 issued a letter to the owner of 1075 70th

17 Avenue, Oakland, California, on or about April 15, 2008, threatening to impose fines and 18 penalties against her by falsely alleging that the Plaintiffs and/or each of them, were using the 19 premises for drug trafficking, even though no evidence of illegal drugs was found at the premises 20 during the course of the January 25, 2008 unreasonable search and seizure. As a result thereof,

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 16

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page17 of 38

1 Plaintiff LAWRENCE GRAHAM and/or NEDYA SHAW and/or each of them was forced to
2 move out of the premises and suffered general and special damages as a result thereof.

3

72. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure,

4 Plaintiffs and/or each of them, suffered damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress,

5 property damage, displacement from their home and/or other damages in amounts to be

6 determined according to proof.

7

PLAINTIFFS NICOLE JACKSON, N.O., A MINOR, AND ANTHONY BIGGINS

8

(Incident No. 1 occurring on or about January 25, 2008)

73. Plaintiff NICOLE JACKSON is informed and believes and thereon 9
alleges that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them, 10
individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as members of the CITY OF 11
OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the Alameda Superior 12
Court without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading statements
13 made in bad faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

14

74. Thereafter, Plaintiff NICOLE JACKSON was subjected to an

15 unreasonable search and seizure on or about January 25, 2008, when members of the CITY

16 OF OAKLAND Police Department used said warrant to enter her residence located at or

17 about 7979 MacArthur Blvd, Apt. 5, in Oakland, California.

18

75. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, Plaintiff NICOLE

19 JACKSON was arrested without reasonable or probable cause. Plaintiff JACKSON was

20 thereafter imprisoned in jail without reasonable or probable cause until she was able to post bail.
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 17

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page18 of 38

1 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that she was
2 thereafter maliciously prosecuted on criminal charges in Alameda Superior Court as a 3 direct result of the illegally obtained warrant.

4

77. Eventually, on or about December 23, 2008, plaintiff is informed and

5 believes and thereon alleges that the malicious charges were dismissed after the Alameda

6 County District Attorney’s Office discovered that the warrant was obtained illegally by

7 defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or by DOES 2-50, individually and/or while

8 acting in concert with one another. Plaintiff JACKSON was thereafter released from

custody on or about December 24, 2008. 9

78. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure, 10
Plaintiff NICOLE JACKSON incurred damages, including, but not limited to, bail 11
expenses, pain, suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to

12 proof.

13

(Incident No. 2 occurring on or about May 8, 2008)

14

79. Plaintiffs NICOLE JACKSON, N.O., a Minor, ANTHONY BIGGINS

15 and/or each of them, are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendant KARLA

16 RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting

17 in concert with one another as members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department,

18 caused warrants to be issued by the Alameda Superior Court without probable cause, 19 based on intentionally false and/or misleading statements made in bad faith by defendant 20 RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 18

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page19 of 38

1 80. Thereafter, Plaintiffs NICOLE JACKSON, N.O., a Minor,
2 ANTHONY BIGGINS and/or each of them, were subjected to an unreasonable search and 3 seizure on or about May 8, 2008, when members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 4 Department used said warrants to enter Plaintiff JACKSON’S residence, located at or

5 about 7979 MacArthur Blvd, Apt. 5, in Oakland, California, the residence where her minor

6 daughter, Plaintiff, N.O., was located at or about 7975 MacArthur Blvd., Apt. 28, Oakland,

7 California.

8

81. As a result of said unreasonable search and seizure, Plaintiffs

NICOLE JACKSON and/or ANTHONY BIGGINS were subjected to an unreasonable 9

search and seizure at 7979 MacArthur Blvd., Apt. 5, Oakland, California, without 10
reasonable or probable cause. Plaintiff JACKSON’s minor daughter, N.O., who was 11
located at 7975 MacArthur Blvd., Apt. 28 was also subjected to an unreasonable search

12 and seizure. The minor was detained, but not arrested.

13

82. During said unreasonable search and seizure, Plaintiff ANTHONY

14 BIGGINS was subjected to excessive force which included, but was not limited to, knocking

15 him to the floor, having an officer jam a knee into his back and causing Plaintiff BIGGINS

16 to have difficulty breathing.

17

83. Plaintiffs NICOLE JACKSON and/or ANTHONY BIGGINS were

18 arrested as a result of the illegally obtained warrant.

19

84. As a result of her imprisonment on said false charges, Plaintiff

20 NICOLE JACKSON was terminated from her job.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 19

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page20 of 38

1 85. Eventually, on or about December 23, 2008, Plaintiff JACKSON is
2 informed and believes and thereon alleges that the malicious charges against Plaintiff were 3 dismissed after the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office discovered that the warrant 4 was obtained illegally by defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or by DOES 2-50,

5 individually and/or while acting in concert with one another. Plaintiff JACKSON was

6 thereafter released from custody on or about December 24, 2008.

7

86. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure,

8 Plaintiffs NICOLE JACKSON, N.O., a minor, and/or ANTHONY BIGGINS, incurred
damages, including, but not limited to, bail expenses, pain, suffering and/or emotional 9
distress in amounts to be determined according to proof. 10
PLAINTIFF RICKETA LYNN MATTHEWS 11
87. Plaintiff RICKETA LYNN MATTHEWS is informed and believes 12
and thereon alleges that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or
13 each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as members of
14 the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the

15 Alameda Superior Court without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or

16 misleading statements made in bad faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50

17 and/or each of them.

18

88. Thereafter, Plaintiff MATTHEWS was subjected to an unreasonable

19 search and seizure on or about December 23, 2007, when members of the CITY OF
20 OAKLAND Police Department used said illegally obtained warrant to enter the residence of her boyfriend, which was located at 952 72nd Avenue Apt B, Oakland, California. The
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 20

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page21 of 38

1 Plaintiff was at the premises at that time to deliver a Christmas gift to her boyfriend and
2 did not reside at that premises.

3

89. Defendant KARLA RUSH and other members of the CITY OF

4 OAKLAND Police Department, DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, entered the premises with

5 their guns drawn. Defendant RUSH ordered other officers (DOES 2-50) to handcuff

6 Plaintiff MATTHEWS.

7

90. Defendant RUSH demanded that Plaintiff MATTHEWS provide her

8 with information concerning criminal activities. When Plaintiff MATTHEWS attempted
to explain to Defendant RUSH that she did not have the information Defendant RUSH was 9
seeking, Defendant RUSH called her “liar” and told her that she would be spending 10
Christmas and New Year’s in jail. 11
91. After Plaintiff MATTHEWS was put into an Oakland Police car, 12
Defendant RUSH told Plaintiff MATTHEWS that she had “one more chance” to tell her
13 the truth. When Plaintiff MATTHEWS told Defendant RUSH she had no information to
14 provide her, Defendant RUSH ordered that the Plaintiff be arrested and falsely charged

15 with crimes, including, but not limited to, a false firearms charge.

16

92. Although Defendant RUSH was aware that Plaintiff had identification

17 with her that indicated that she did not live at the address that was the subject of the search

18 warrant, and was only visiting the premises as a guest, Defendant RUSH ordered another 19 Oakland Police Officer (DOES 2-50) to write the location of the search as the Plaintiff’s 20 address on the police report of the incident, rather than her correct residence address
shown on her identification. 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 21

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page22 of 38

1 93. During the course of this incident, Defendant RUSH also ordered
2 another Oakland Police Officer (DOES 2-50) to search Plaintiff MATTHEWS. At that 3 time, Plaintiff MATTHEWS had cash in her pant’s pocket and in her purse totaling 4 approximately $478.00 from funds she had earned at her job. This money and the

5 Plaintiff’s purse were taken by the police and were never returned to the Plaintiff.

6

94. Thereafter, Plaintiff MATTHEWS, who had no criminal record

7 before this incident, was put into a paddy wagon and taken to Santa Rita Jail where she

8 was imprisoned without reasonable or probable cause to believe that she had committed

any crime. The Plaintiff remained in jail through Christmas and New Year’s until she was 9
able to post bail and was released on or about January 11, 2008. 10
95. Plaintiff MATTHEWS is informed and believes and thereon alleges 11
that she was subjected to malicious prosecution in which she was falsely charged with 12
crimes, including firearm and narcotics offenses, as a result of the false and malicious
13 claims of Defendant RUSH.

14

96. During a preliminary hearing in the criminal proceedings, Plaintiff

15 MATTHEWS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant RUSH gave

16 intentionally false testimony about the Plaintiff in furtherance of the false and malicious

17 prosecution of the Plaintiff.

18

97. Fearing that she would face a long period of imprisonment if

19 convicted as a result of Defendant RUSH’s false and malicious claims, Plaintiff initially

20 agreed to accept a plea agreement on or about May 14, 2008 to avoid the possibility of serving additional jail time.
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 22

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page23 of 38

1 98. However, Plaintiff MATTHEWS returned to Court on or about
2 November 10, 2008, and was advised that the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 3 agreed to dismiss her criminal charges due Defendant RUSH’s misconduct.

4

99. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff MATTHEWS incurred damages,

5 including, but not limited to, lost wages in amounts to be determined according to proof,

6 bail expenses in amounts to be determined according to proof, the loss of cash, her purse

7 and the contents of her purse, and pain, suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be
8 determined according to proof.
PLAINTIFFS CHERYL HOPKINS, TRAVIS HOPKINS and DANIEL CASEY 9
100. Plaintiffs CHERYL HOPKINS, TRAVIS HOPKINS, DANIEL 10
CASEY and/or each of them, are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant 11
KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, individually and/or 12
while acting in concert with one another as members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 13 Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the Alameda Superior Court without
14 probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading statements made in bad
15 faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

16

101. Thereafter, Plaintiffs CHERYL HOPKINS, TRAVIS HOPKINS,

17 DANIEL CASEY and/or each of them, were subjected to an unreasonable search and
18 seizure on or about June 20, 2008, when members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 19 Department used said warrant to enter Plaintiffs’ residence located at or about 2218 64th 20 Avenue, Oakland, California.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 23

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page24 of 38

1 102. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe and thereon allege that
2 Defendant RUSH and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, obtained this warrant in 3 retaliation for an earlier incident in which Plaintiff CHERYL HOPKINS, who had no 4 criminal record, exercised her First Amendment right to freedom of speech when she

5 criticized how Defendant RUSH handled a motor vehicle investigation involving Plaintiff

6 TRAVIS HOPKINS.

7

103. During the course of the incident, Defendant RUSH and/or DOES 2-

8 50 and/or each of them, entered the Plaintiffs’ residence in the early morning hours of June

20, 2008, with their guns drawn and pointed at Plaintiffs. 9
104. Plaintiff TRAVIS HOPKINS was subjected to excessive force by a 10
CITY OF OAKLAND Police Officer (DOES 2-50) when he was struck in the face and 11
knocked to the floor without justification. 12
105. Plaintiff DANIEL CASEY was awakened from his bed at gunpoint by
13 officers, was thrown onto the floor and handcuffed by DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

14

106. The Plaintiffs were handcuffed and detained initially in the living

15 room of their home as the officers searched their home without reasonable or probable

16 cause.

17

107. Plaintiff CHERYL HOPKINS was not allowed by the officers to use

18 the restroom and, as a result, soiled herself and was humiliated.

19

108. During the course of the search, Plaintiffs’ personal property was

20 damaged and/or destroyed unnecessarily by Defendants RUSH and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 24

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page25 of 38

1 109. Plaintiff CHERYL HOPKINS, who was disabled and had never been
2 arrested before, was taken out of her home in handcuffs in her bedclothes and put into an 3 Oakland Police vehicle without reasonable or probable cause to believe that she committed 4 any crime.

5

110. Plaintiff TRAVIS HOPKINS was also arrested as a result of the

6 illegally obtained warrant without probable cause.

7

111. Plaintiff DANIEL CASEY was also arrested as a result of the illegally

8 obtained warrant without probable cause.

112. Plaintiffs CHERYL HOPKINS, TRAVIS HOPKINS and DANIEL 9

CASEY were initially taken to the Eastmont Substation. Plaintiff CASEY was released 10
from the Eastmont substation and no charges were filed against him. Plaintiffs CHERYL 11
HOPKINS and TRAVIS HOPKINS were then transported to Santa Rita Jail. Said

12 Plaintiffs were stripped searched and booked into custody.

13

113. Plaintiffs CHERYL HOPKINS and TRAVIS HOPKINS were

14 eventually released from custody when they were able to post bail.

15

114. No criminal charges were filed against Plaintiff CHERYL HOPKINS

16 or DANIEL CASEY as a result of this incident.

17

115. Plaintiff TRAVIS HOPKINS is informed and believes and thereon

18 alleges that Defendant RUSH caused him to be maliciously prosecuted in Alameda 19 Superior Court as a result of this incident. Eventually, however, the criminal charges 20 against Plaintiff TRAVIS HOPKINS were dismissed as a result of Defendant RUSH’s
misconduct in obtaining the illegal warrant for the Plaintiffs’ home. 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page26 of 38

1 116. Following this incident, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and
2 thereon allege that Defendant RUSH and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, attempted to 3 have the CITY OF OAKLAND declare Plaintiffs’ home as a public nuisance. This caused 4 Plaintiffs to suffer additional emotional distress because of the fear they could lose their

5 home due to Defendant RUSH’s misconduct.

6

117. As a result of this incident, Plaintiffs and/or each of them, incurred

7 damages, including, but not limited to pain, suffering and emotional distress, personal
8 property damage and/or loss and/or lost wages (Plaintiff TRAVIS HOPKINS) in amounts
to be determined according to proof. 9
PLAINTIFF HUMBERTO TORRES 10
118. Plaintiff HUMBERTO TORRES is informed and believes and 11
thereon alleges that defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 4-50 and/or each of 12
them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another as members of the CITY 13 OF OAKLAND Police Department, caused a warrant to be issued by the Alameda
14 Superior Court without probable cause, based on intentionally false and/or misleading
15 statements made in bad faith by defendant RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each

16 of them.

17

119. Thereafter, Plaintiff HUMBERTO TORRES was subjected to an

18 unreasonable search and seizure on or about July 18, 2008, when members of the CITY OF

19 OAKLAND Police Department, including, but not limited to, Defendant RUSH and/or
20 DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, used said warrant to enter his residence located at or about 1089 69th Avenue; Oakland, California.
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 26

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page27 of 38

1 120. When the officers entered the Plaintiff’s home, they had their guns
2 drawn and pointed at the Plaintiff. Plaintiff TORRES was ordered to lay on the floor and 3 was handcuffed. Later, Plaintiff was taken outside of his home, wearing only boxer shorts, 4 and put into an Oakland Police car.

5

121. Plaintiff TORRES was arrested without reasonable or probable cause

6 as a result of the illegally obtained warrant and was taken to Santa Rita Jail.

7

122. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff’s probation was revoked and he

8 was incarcerated for approximately 150 days on the probation violation. Eventually, the

Plaintiff was released from custody and his probation was restored when the Alameda 9
County District Attorney’s Office discovered Defendant RUSH’s misconduct and moved to 10
dismiss the charges against the Plaintiff. 11
123. As a result of this incident, Defendant RUSH also attempted to have 12
the Plaintiff’s home declared a nuisance by the CITY OF OAKLAND. This resulted in
13 causing additional emotional distress to the Plaintiff.

14

124. As a result of the aforementioned unreasonable search and seizure,

15 Plaintiff TORRES incurred damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, pain,

16 suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to proof.

17 AS TO ALL NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS
18 125. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that
19 Plaintiffs, and all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as
20 a result of customs, policies, patterns and/or practices of Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND,
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 27

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page28 of 38

1 DOES 51-100, and each of them, including, but not limited to, deliberate indifference in the
2 hiring, supervision, training, and discipline of members of the Oakland Police Department, 3 including, but not limited to, defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or 4 each of them.

5

126. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that they,

6 and all persons similarly situated to them, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as

7 alleged herein as a result of customs, policies and/or practices of defendants CITY OF

8 OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, including customs, policies and/or practices of

failing to fully and/or fairly investigate complaints of misconduct against its police officers; of 9
failing to appropriately monitor or otherwise track complaints of misconduct against its police 10
officers so that appropriate and timely disciplinary action and/or training could be taken when 11
officer(s) were shown to have a history of complaints; and/or of failing to promptly remove or 12
terminate officers who repeatedly violated the rights of citizens and/or engaged in the type of
13 misconduct alleged herein.

14

127. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

15 aforementioned incidents were caused by the deliberate indifference of the CITY OF

16 OAKLAND, Defendants 51-100, and/or other high ranking Police Department officials and/or

17 supervisors, with regard to the need for more or different training and/or supervision and/or

18 discipline of its police officers, including, but not limited to, defendants KARLA RUSH or DOE

19 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.

20

128. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that they,

and all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result of 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 28

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page29 of 38

1 customs, policies, or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or each
2 of them, individually and/or acting in concert with one another, including, but not limited to, 3 customs, policies or practices which encouraged, authorized or condoned false arrests, 4 fabrication of evidence, falsification of police reports, false and/or misleading warrant affidavits

5 and/or other misconduct which foreseeably would result in the violation of the rights of citizens.

6

129. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that they,

7 and all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result of
8 customs, policies or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, individually
and/or acting in concert with one another, including, but not limited to, a custom, policy or 9
practice of failing to stop or prevent ongoing acts of misconduct by certain members of its police 10
department, including, but not limited to, defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1, DOES 2-50 11
and/or each of them. 12
130. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that they, 13 and all persons similarly situated, suffered the violation of their constitutional rights as a result of
14 customs, policies or practices of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, individually
15 and/or acting in concert with one another, including, but not limited to, a custom, policy or

16 practice of failing to uphold and enforce remedies that defendants already agreed to adopt to

17 prevent such ongoing abuses by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department in the

18 Delphine Allen v. City of Oakland (The Riders) Litigation.

19

131. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that high

20 ranking CITY OF OAKLAND officials, including, but not limited to defendants DOES 51-100, and/or other high ranking police department officials and/or supervisors, knew and/or reasonably
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 29

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page30 of 38

1 should have known of the custom, policies, patterns and/or practices of misconduct by the
2 individual police officer Defendants herein, KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-100 3 and/or by each of them, and failed to take any or appropriate remedial action prior to the subject 4 incident.

5

132. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that

6 defendants DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, tacitly or directly ratified, approved, condoned

7 and/or otherwise encouraged a pattern, practice, custom or policy of misconduct and/or civil
8 rights violations by defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 9
133. Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2) 10
to allege claims for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and all 11
persons similarly situated. The proposed class consists of all persons who were subjected to 12
searches, seizures, arrests, imprisonments and/or malicious prosecutions based on false and/or 13 misleading information contained in CITY OF OAKLAND police reports, warrant affidavits
14 and/or other testimony and/or writings used to obtain search and/or arrest warrants from
15 California Courts by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department since the

16 adoption of the non-monetary settlement agreement in Delphine Allen v. City of Oakland.

17

134. This case satisfies the prerequisites of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action.

18

135. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

19 Plaintiffs do not know the identities or exact number of all class members. Based on newspaper

20 accounts, it appears that at least 11 members of the City of Oakland Police Department were pulled from street duty by the Oakland Police Department in connection with this latest scandal
21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 30

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page31 of 38

1 and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has not yet determined the exact number of
2 cases it intends to move to dismiss as a result of the false and/or misleading information given by 3 Oakland Police Department officers to the Court in procuring warrants. Therefore, the size of 4 the class is likely to be large given the number of officers involved.

5

136. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the class,

6 because all class members have been adversely affected by the challenged actions of the

7 defendants. Common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: whether defendant
8 KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them engaged in a custom, policy,
pattern and/or practice of fabricating police reports, making false and/or misleading statements in 9
procuring warrants from the Courts and/or otherwise causing the plaintiff and class members to 10
be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrests, false imprisonments and/or 11
malicious prosecutions; whether the defendants’ conduct was motivated by racial animus or bias, 12
whether defendant CITY OF OAKLAND maintained customs, policies, patterns and practices 13 which caused and/or contributed to the violation of the plaintiffs’ rights; and whether the CITY
14 OF OAKLAND, its police department and/or city officials and/or supervisors failed to properly
15 train and supervise members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department which caused

16 and/or contributed to the violation of the plaintiffs’ rights.

17

137. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.

18 The claims of the class members arise from the same type of conduct, customs, policies or 19 practices that have resulted in damages to the class representatives and are based on the same 20 legal theories.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 31

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page32 of 38

1 138. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
2 of the class because they are, and were, subject to the policies, customs, patterns and practices 3 complained of herein, and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. In 4 addition, plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced in litigating federal civil rights cases and class

5 actions, including federal civil rights actions against the CITY OF OAKLAND and the CITY OF

6 OAKLAND Police Department.

7

139. The defendants have acted and/or have failed to act on grounds generally

8 applicable to the class, and an award of damages, injunctive and declaratory relief for the class as

a whole is appropriate. 9

140. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class 10
would create a risk of inconsistent or incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, 11
thereby making a class action the superior method of adjudicating the controversy.

12 STATEMENT OF DAMAGES AND RELIEF SOUGHT

13

141. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of defendants as alleged in this

14 Complaint, plaintiffs, and those persons similarly situated, and each of them, suffered damages

15 and/or injuries, including, but not limited to, pain, suffering and emotional distress, in amounts to

16 be determined according to proof.

17

142. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of defendants as alleged in this

18 Complaint, plaintiffs, and those persons similarly situated, and each of them, suffered special 19 damages or may suffer special damages in the future, including, but not limited to, lost wages, 20 criminal defense attorneys’ fees and costs, bail bond expenses, loss of their home(s), relocation

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 32

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page33 of 38

1 expenses, damage or loss of personal property and/or other out of pocket losses to be determined
2 according to proof.

3

143. Plaintiffs and the class members will also be entitled to recover their

4 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to their general and compensatory damages

5 pursuant to statute.

6

144. The conduct of defendant KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-100

7 and/or each of them, was intentional, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent and/or done with a
8 conscious and/or reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs and the
class members will be entitled to recover punitive damages in amounts to be determined 9
according to proof. 10
145. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein 11
have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to plaintiffs and the class members, 12
including but not limited to violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs and 13 class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs
14 described herein. The plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their
15 constitutional rights in the vicinity of the City of Oakland and in other public places in the City

16 of Oakland. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty

17 among plaintiffs with respect to their ability to exercise their constitutional rights in the present

18 and future, and with respect to their liberty, privacy, physical security and safety. Defendants’ 19 conduct described herein has also created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs and class 20 members with respect to their exercise of their right to move freely about the public streets, in
their own homes and/or in the homes of friends and/or relatives without being subjected to 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 33

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page34 of 38

1 unreasonable searches and seizures and/or discriminatory and disparate treatment due to their
2 ethnicity and/or race.

3

146. Plaintiffs and the class therefore seek injunctive relief from this court, to

4 ensure that plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of their rights from

5 defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and practices as described herein.

6

147. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs, the class members and

7 defendants in that plaintiffs and the class contends that the policies, practices and conduct of

8 defendants alleged herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas plaintiffs and the class

members are informed and believe that defendants contend that said policies, practices and 9

conduct are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this 10
controversy. 11
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

12 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)

14

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS KARLA RUSH, DOES 1-50)

15

148. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege herein Paragraphs 1

16 through 147.

17

149. In doing the acts complained of herein, defendants KARLA RUSH or

18 DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, did act under color of state law to deprive 19 plaintiffs, the class members and/or each of them as alleged heretofore of certain constitutionally 20 protected rights, including, but not limited to:
(a) the right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures; 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 34

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page35 of 38

1 (b) the right to equal protection of the law; and/or

2

(c) the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

3

150. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth

4 Amendments to the United States Constitution.

5

151. As a result of the violation of their constitutional rights by defendants

6 KARLA RUSH or DOE 1 and/or DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, plaintiffs, the class members

7 and/or each of them sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged heretofore in this

8 Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class members pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. 9
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 10
(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983) 11
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100) 12
152. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege herein Paragraphs 1
13 through 150.

14

153. As against Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 51-100 and/or

15 each of them, individually and/or in their capacities as official policy-maker(s) for the CITY OF

16 OAKLAND, the plaintiffs and class members further allege that the acts and/or omissions

17 alleged in the Complaint herein are indicative and representative of a repeated course of conduct

18 by members of defendant CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department tantamount to a custom, 19 policy or repeated practice of condoning and tacitly encouraging the abuse of police authority, 20 and disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens, such as plaintiffs.

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 35

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page36 of 38

1 154. Plaintiffs and class members are further informed and believe and thereon
2 allege that the acts and/or omissions alleged herein are the proximate result of a custom, policy, 3 pattern or practice of deliberate indifference by defendant CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100
4 and/or each of them, to the repeated violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by CITY
5 OF OAKLAND police officers, which have included, but are not limited to, repeated acts of
6 making false reports, providing false and/or misleading information in the procurement of
7 warrants, causing arrests, imprisonments and/or malicious prosecutions based on fabricated 8 and/or misleading statements and/or engaging in similar acts of misconduct on a repeated basis.
155. Plaintiffs and class members are further informed and believe and thereon 9
allege that the damages sustained as alleged herein were the proximate result customs, policies 10
and/or practices which included, but were not limited to, the failure to adequately or 11
appropriately hold officers accountable for their misconduct, the failure to properly and fairly 12
investigate complaints about officers’ misconduct, the failure to enact or adopt policies to ensure 13 adequate and/or appropriate oversight of officers to prevent continuing violations of the rights of 14 citizens, the failure to fully implement and enforce the non-monetary settlement agreement in the 15 Delphine Allen v. City of Oakland (the Riders) Litigation which was intended to redress the same
16 or similar unconstitutional conduct that occurred in the instant case, the failure to properly train
17 and/or discipline officers, the failure to adequately or properly supervise officers, the failure to
18 adopt and fully implement an appropriate early warning system, policies and customs which
19 encouraged officers to target certain groups of citizens for unreasonable search and seizure 20 and/or other customs, and/or policies which caused and/or contributed to, the violation of the
rights of citizens by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 36

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page37 of 38

1 156. The aforementioned deliberate indifference, customs, policies or practices
2 of defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, resulted in the 3 deprivation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and class members, including, but not 4 limited to, the following:

5

(a) the right not to be deprived of liberty or property without Due Process of Law;

6

(b) the right to be free from unreasonable searches and/or seizures; and/or,

7

(c) the right to equal protection of the law.

8

157. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. 9

158. As a result of the violation of their constitutional rights by defendants 10
CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, plaintiffs and the class 11
members and/or each of them, sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged heretofore in this

12 Complaint.

13

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and class members pray for relief as hereinafter set

14 forth.

15

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

16

159. Plaintiffs and class members hereby demand a jury trial.

17

PRAYER

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and class members pray for judgment against defendants, and

19 each of them, as follows:

20

1. For an order certifying the class defined herein pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and

(b)(2); 21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 37

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document22 Filed02/19/09 Page38 of 38

1 2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining defendants from engaging
2 in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions complained of above;

3

3. For a declaratory judgment that defendants’ conduct complained of herein was a

4 violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and California;

5

4. For the individual named plaintiffs, general, special and compensatory damages to be

6 determined according to proof;

7

5. For punitive and exemplary damages in amounts to be determined according to proof

8 as to the individual defendants;

6. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or other authorities in amounts to 9

be determined according to proof; 10
7. For costs of suit; 11
8. For pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

12 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

13

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

14

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the

15 named parties, there is no such interest to report.

16

Dated: February 6, 2009

17

JOHN

At 18

Dated: February 6, 2009 19

At 20

___________/S/________________ L. BURRIS
torney for Plaintiffs
__________/S/______________ JAMES B. CHANIN
torney for Plaintiffs

21

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 38

 </s> Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page1 of 16

1 JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
2 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621
3 (510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com
4 JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)
5 JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968) Law Offices of James B. Chanin
6 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94705
7 (510) 848-4752; FAX: (510) 848-5819 Email: jbcofc@aol.com
8

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

REGINALD OLIVER, et al.

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

)

13 DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

14

Plaintiffs,

) MASTER CASE NO: C00-4599 TEH ) OLIVER CASE NO: C08-04914 TEH ) JACKSON CASE NO: C08-4984 TEH

15 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

16

Defendants.

) ) ) )

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND PLAINTIFFS/PUTATIVE CLASS

_____________________________________ ) MEMBERS)

17

)

REGINALD OLIVER, et al.,

)

18

)

Plaintiffs,

)

19 vs.

)

)

20 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

)

_____________________________________ )

21 HAROLD JACKSON, et al.,

)

)

22

Plaintiffs,

)

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 1
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page2 of 16

1

)

v.

)

2

)

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

)

3

)

Defendants.

)

4

)

5

I. INTRODUCTION 6

The Oliver, et al. Plaintiffs commenced this action as a putative class action under 7
F.R.Civ.P. 23. The Court has not yet certified the case as a class action under F.R.Civ.P. 23. 8

The parties have now reached a tentative settlement with respect to the monetary claims and are 9

moving the Court for an Order approving that settlement. 10
Until 2003, F.R.Civ.P. 23 (e) provided for many years that a pre-certification settlement 11

in a putative class action was subject to the approval of the Court to ensure that the settlement 12
was not collusive or prejudicial. See e.g., Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 13

1401, 1408 (9th Cir.1989). However, in 2003, F.R.Civ.P. 23(e) was amended as follows: “The 14
claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or 15

compromised only with the court's approval.” (Emphasis added). Rule 23 as amended does not 16

expressly state that approval of settlements in uncertified cases is not required and the Ninth 17
Circuit has not yet clarified this issue. See, e.g., Holmes v. Collection Bureau of America, Ltd., 18

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5108 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 19
Since the instant case also involves non-monetary (injunctive) relief claims which 20

Plaintiffs contend will require the continued jurisdiction of the Court, and in light of the 21
uncertainty of the current state of the law in the Ninth Circuit with respect to whether Court 22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 2
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page3 of 16

1 approval is still required for pre-certification settlements in putative class actions, the parties

2 believe it is necessary to obtain the Court’s approval of the proposed settlement and dismissal of

3 all class based claims for monetary relief while allowing the Court to retain jurisdiction over the

4 non-monetary relief issues and to establish that the settlement of the claims for monetary relief,

5 without formal notice to the putative class, is fair, reasonable, does not prejudice the absent class

6 members and was not the product of collusion if the Ninth Circuit determines that Court

7 approval is still required for settlements in putative class actions which have not been certified.

8

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

9

A. EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS

10

The Oliver, et al. Plaintiffs allege that the subject case arose from a pattern and practice

11 by members of the Oakland Police Department of submitting warrant affidavits to the Alameda

12 Superior Court in support of the issuance of search warrants in narcotics cases that contained

13 deliberately false or recklessly inaccurate information, including, false claims that narcotics

14 allegedly purchased by confidential informants during “X-buys” had been tested with positive

15 results and other similar falsehoods.

16

During the course of the litigation, counsel for the Oliver Plaintiffs reviewed the search

17 warrants and affidavits, police reports, and consolidated arrest reports for the narcotics search

18 warrant affidavits which had been identified by the Internal Affairs Division of the Oakland

19 Police Department as containing the false or misleading information about the drug testing and

20 other falsehoods.

21

As a result, counsel for the Oliver Plaintiffs were able to identify 104 putative class

22 members who had been the victims narcotics search warrants issued on affidavits that contained

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 3
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page4 of 16

1 false or recklessly misleading information and who had actionable civil claims because 1) their

2 claims were not barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; 2) no criminal charges were ever

3 filed against them; 3) any criminal charges that were filed against them were resolved in their

4 favor as a result of the dismissal of their cases and/or the granting of writs of corum nobis or

5 habeas corpus; and/or 4) the putative class member was subjected to excessive force during the

6 illegal search. (Chanin decl.).

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel sent letters and/or made telephone calls to persons identified as

8 potential putative class members and also retained private investigators to assist in locating

9 individuals identified through Court records, police reports and other sources as potential

10 putative class members. (Chanin decl.). These efforts began shortly after the commencement of

11 the litigation in October 2008 and continued on diligent basis through approximately May 2010

12 when Plaintiffs’ counsel believed that they had exhausted all reasonable efforts to locate putative

13 class members with actionable claims.

14

Plaintiffs’ counsel were also contacted by putative class members who learned about the

15 litigation through media reports and word of mouth. (Chanin decl.). Plaintiffs’ counsel also

16 assisted some potential putative class members whose criminal cases had not been dismissed by

17 the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office in having their cases dismissed so that they

18 would be ripe for adjudication civilly. (Chanin decl.).

19

As a result of these efforts, Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that they have located and

20 identified most, if not almost all, of the putative class members with actionable claims. A list of

21 the specific Plaintiffs and identified putative class members who are the subject of this proposed

22 settlement is attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1. (Chanin decl.).

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 4
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page5 of 16

1

B. COURT ORDERED SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

2

After commencing the Oliver action and after conducting a significant amount of

3 discovery with respect to both liability and damages, the Court Ordered the parties to participate

4 in a formal Settlement Conference presided over by the Honorable James Larson on September

5 17, 2009. (Chanin decl.). The case did not resolve at that time and the parties continued to

6 conduct discovery and to vigorously litigate the case. (Chanin decl.).

7

Thereafter, a further Settlement Conference was scheduled before Judge Larson on

8 March 1, 2010, which was later continued to April 27, 2010. Prior to that conference the parties

9 agreed to attend three (3) all day Mediation sessions before the Honorable Raul A. Ramirez on

10 June 9, 10 and 11, 2010.

11

These Mediation sessions before Judge Ramirez were contentious and involved a

12 substantial amount of time, effort and expense on the part of all parties in order for all concerned

13 to understand the issues of liability, damages and non-monetary relief. (Chanin decl.).

14 As a result of these Mediation sessions before Judge Ramirez, a tentative monetary settlement

15 was reached on June 11, 2010, which included all of the currently identified Oliver and Jackson

16 plaintiffs. The proposed monetary settlement, however, was contingent upon the following: 1)

17 the formal approval by the City of Oakland; 2) approval by the individual Plaintiffs/putative

18 class members identified on Exhibit 1; and 3) the issuance of a court order approving the

19 settlement of the monetary claims, granting the minors’ petitions for compromise and dismissal

20 with prejudice of the currently identified Oliver putative class members’ class based monetary

21 claims. Subsequently, there have been continuing negotiations concerning the content and scope

22 of the claims for non-monetary relief. (Chanin decl.).

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 5
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page6 of 16

1

To date, all of the identified individual Plaintiffs/identified putative class members listed

2 on Exhibit 1 have signed the settlement release and have approved the settlement. (Chanin 3 decl.).1

4

C. ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

5

1. Monetary Relief

6

Defendants have offered to settle the monetary relief claims of the 104 individual

7 Plaintiffs and putative class members who have been identified on Exhibit 1 for a total gross

8 settlement sum of $6,500.00.00 (Six Million, Five Hundred Thousand dollars) inclusive of all

9 attorney fees and costs. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the distribution of this gross

10 settlement sum is to be determined between the individual plaintiffs and their attorneys. In

11 executing the individual releases, the individual plaintiffs/putative class members identified on

12 Exhibit 1 are also approving their individual shares of the settlement proceeds and the net

13 amount of the settlements they will receive after payment of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

14 their contingency fee contracts with Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Chanin decl.). Some of the settling

15 Plaintiffs may elect to have their net settlements paid via structured settlements. In addition, the

16 compromises of the Minors’ claims are subject to the approval of the Court. Id.

17

The valuation of the individual Plaintiffs’ claims is based on an assessment of their

18 personal injuries, lost wages, time spent in custody, the underlying criminal actions brought

19 against them, their prior and/or subsequent experience in the criminal justice system, the impact

20

21 1 The Jackson Plaintiffs have also entered into separate settlements with Defendants. In addition, the Jackson
Plaintiffs have signed separate releases in accordance with those settlements. These Plaintiffs are identified on

22

Exhibit 1 at numbers 105 and 106. In consideration of the separate payment to the Jackson plaintiffs and their counsel, the Jackson plaintiffs will be filing a dismissal with prejudice of any and all claims asserted in that matter.

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 6
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page7 of 16

1 to them as individuals and on their families and any medical expenses or other out of pocket

2 losses they may have incurred. (Chanin decl.).

3

Under the proposed settlement, Defendants’ counsel will issue a settlement draft payable

4 to the respective Plaintiffs’ counsel trust accounts and Plaintiffs’ counsel will be responsible for

5 distributing the settlement proceeds as set forth in written distributions approved by the settling

6 Plaintiffs. Each individual Plaintiff will also pay attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs’ counsel from the

7 settlement proceeds and a pro-rata share of the litigation costs pursuant to their respective written

8 attorneys’ fee agreements with Plaintiffs’ counsel and/or pursuant to Orders issued by this Court

9 granted the compromises of the Minor Plaintiffs’ claims. (Chanin decl.).

10

2. Non-Monetary Relief

11

In addition to the monetary settlement sum referred to above, the parties are continuing to

12 negotiate with respect to the non-monetary relief issues which will be intended to address and

13 remedy training and policy deficiencies which caused or contributed to the cause of the warrant

14 affidavit problems in this case. In the event the parties reach agreement on the non-monetary

15 issues, then a separate Settlement Agreement regarding the non-monetary relief issues will be

16 presented to the Court under separate cover and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the

17 enforcement of the non-monetary relief Settlement Agreement for a period of two years from the

18 date the non-monetary Settlement Agreement is executed by the parties. The Oliver Plaintiffs’

19 counsel have agreed to waive any claim for attorneys’ fees against Defendants for work

20 performed on the non-monetary relief issues through September 15, 2010. (Chanin decl.).

21

3. DISMISSALS PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 7
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page8 of 16

1

In consideration of the monetary settlement referred to above, the individual

2 Plaintiffs/putative class members identified on Exhibit 1 have agreed to dismiss both their

3 individual monetary relief claims and any and all class based monetary relief claims they may

4 have with prejudice. Under the terms of the settlement, however, the Oliver putative class action

5 will be dismissed without prejudice as to the claims of any absent putative class members who

6 are not specifically identified on Exhibit 1. (Chanin decl.). This will prevent any possible

7 prejudice to the claims of any absent putative class members since the statute of limitations on

8 such claims has been tolled during the pendency of the putative class action.

9

4. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE

APPROVED UNDER F.R.Civ.P. 23(e)

10

As discussed above, F.R.Civ.P. 23(e) was amended in 2003 to state that settlements in

11

certified class actions must be approved by the Court. To date, the Ninth Circuit has not clarified

12

whether Courts are still required to approve settlements reached in putative class actions prior to

13

certification as noted by the Honorable Judge William H. Alsup in Holmes v. Collection Bureau

14

of America, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5108 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Given this uncertainty, and in

15

light of the fact that the settlement of Plaintiffs’ non-monetary relief claims will require the

16

Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the non-monetary relief settlement, the parties respectfully

17

request that the Court exercise its discretion to approve the settlement described herein without

18

notice to the absent putative class members because it is fair and reasonable, does not prejudice

19

the absent putative class members, and it was not the product of collusion as evidenced by the

20

fact that the parties settlement discussions were supervised by both Magistrate Judge James

21

Larson and the Honorable Raul A. Ramirez (Ret).

22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 8
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page9 of 16

1

In Miller v. Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9329 (E.D. PA,

2 May 23, 2002), the Court approved a pre-certification settlement of a putative class action

3 without notice to the putative class where the claims of the absent putative class members were

4 being dismissed without prejudice.

5

In that case, just as in the instant case, Plaintiffs’ counsel sought to identify as many of

6 the individual, putative class members as possible, obtained the agreement of all the identified

7 class members to the settlement, and the Court determined that the proposed settlement terms

8 were fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

9

In the instant case, the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and was not the product

10 of collusion. Each of the individual Plaintiffs/identified putative class members identified in

11 Exhibit 1 is receiving a portion of the gross settlement sum based on an individual assessment of

12 their physical and other damages sustained as a result of the misconduct of the officers in their

13 individual cases. Each of the individual Plaintiffs/identified putative class members specified on

14 Exhibit 1 who are taking part in the settlement have approved the settlement agreement and their

15 specific recovery.

16

In addition to the monetary portion of the settlement, counsel for the parties are

17 continuing to endeavor to reach an agreement concerning the settlement of the non-monetary

18 relief claims in the form of specific reforms intended to remedy the kind of police misconduct

19 that occurred in this case and is of substantial benefit to the putative class as a whole.

20

As noted above, the claims of the absent putative class members who are not identified

21 on Exhibit 1 will not be prejudiced by the settlement because the class action as to any absent

22 putative class members is being dismissed without prejudice.

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 9
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page10 of 16

1

Wherefore, the parties hereby respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulated

2 motion as set forth above.

3 Dated: August 5, 2010 4

__________/s/__________________ JOHN L. BURRIS Attorney for the Oliver Plaintiffs

5 Dated: August 5, 2010 6

_________/s/___________________ JAMES B. CHANIN Attorney for the Oliver Plaintiffs

7 Dated: August 5, 2010 8

_________/s/___________________ RANDOLPH W. HALL Attorney for Defendants

9 Dated: August 5, 2010 10

__________/s/__________________ TERENCE CASSIDY Attorney for Defendants

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 10
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page11 of 16

1

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

2

I, JAMES B. CHANIN, DECLARE:

3

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and have been duly

4 admitted to the bar of this Court. I am one of the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs in this

5 action and in the actions which have been heretofore related by the Court.

6

2. In October 2008, the action entitled, Reginald Oliver, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al.,

7 Case No. C08-04914 TEH was filed in this Court. The Complaint alleged civil rights violations

8 under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arising from a course of conduct by members of the City of

9 Oakland Police Department in which officers submitted search warrant affidavits containing

10 false or misleading information about drug testing and other matters to Alameda Superior Courts

11 to obtain narcotics search warrants in cases where the officers claimed “X-buys” of narcotics

12 were made by confidential informants from alleged drug dealers. This action was filed as a

13 putative class action and sought damages and non-monetary relief on behalf of the individually

14 named Plaintiffs as well as on behalf of putative class members having the same or substantially

15 similar claims.

16

3. After filing the Oliver action, Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed the search warrants and

17 affidavits, police reports, and consolidated arrest reports for the narcotics search warrant

18 affidavits which had been identified by the Internal Affairs Division of the Oakland Police

19 Department as having contained false or misleading information about the narcotics testing and

20 related issues. As a result, counsel for the Oliver Plaintiffs were able to identify 104 putative

21 class members who had been the victims narcotics search warrants that contained false or

22 recklessly misleading information and who had actionable civil claims because 1) their claims

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 11
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page12 of 16

1 were not barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; 2) no criminal charges were ever filed

2 against them and/or 3) any criminal charges that were filed against them were resolved in their

3 favor as a result of the dismissal of their cases and/or the granting of writs of corum nobis or

4 habeas corpus.

5

4. Plaintiffs’ counsel sent letters and/or made telephone calls to persons identified as

6 potential putative class members and also retained private investigators to assist in locating

7 individuals identified through Court records, police reports and other sources as potential

8 putative class members. These efforts began shortly after the commencement of the litigation in

9 October 2008 and continued on diligent basis through approximately May 2010 when Plaintiffs’

10 counsel believed that they had exhausted all reasonable efforts to locate putative class members

11 with actionable claims.

12

5. Plaintiffs’ counsel were also contacted by putative class members who learned about

13 the litigation through media reports and word of mouth. Plaintiffs’ counsel also assisted some

14 potential putative class members whose criminal cases had not been dismissed by the Alameda

15 County District Attorney’s Office in having their cases dismissed so that they would be ripe for

16 adjudication civilly.

17

6. As a result of these efforts, Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that they have located and

18 identified most, if not almost all, of the putative class members with actionable claims. A list of

19 the specific Plaintiffs and identified putative class members who are the subject of this proposed

20 settlement is attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1. (Chanin decl.).

21

7. After commencing the Oliver action, Plaintiffs’ counsel propounded extensive

22 discovery requests on Defendants and obtained thousands of pages of documents concerning the

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 12
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page13 of 16

1 subject searches, the Oakland Police Department’s investigation of into the warrant scandal,

2 disciplinary proceedings brought against some of the officers implicated in the scandal and the

3 documents relating to the customs, policies and practices of the Oakland Police Department

4 pertaining to search warrants, narcotics investigations and confidential informants, among other

5 subjects.

6

8. This Court subsequently ordered the parties to participate in formal Settlement

7 Conferences presided over by the Honorable Magistrate Judge, James Larson. Although these

8 settlement conferences were not successful in resolving the case, the parties did subsequently

9 agree to Mediate the case before the Honorable Raul A. Ramirez (Ret.).

10

9. As a result, three (3) full day Mediation sessions were held by Judge Ramirez on June

11 9, 10 and 11, 2010. Several of the Plaintiffs attended the first Mediation session where they were

12 able to describe the very real impact the searches had on their lives. The settlement negotiations

13 during these mediation sessions were often contentious and involved a substantial amount of

14 time, effort and expense on the part of all parties in order for all concerned to understand the

15 issues of liability, damages and non-monetary relief.

16

10. At the conclusion of the Mediation session before Judge Ramirez on June 11, 2010,

17 the parties reached a tentative monetary settlement. The proposed monetary settlement,

18 however, was contingent upon the approval of the compromise of the minor’s claims by the

19 Court, contingent on the approval by the identified individual Plaintiffs/putative class members

20 specified on Exhibit 1 and contingent upon the parties reaching agreement on the settlement of

21 the non-monetary relief claims.

22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 13
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page14 of 16

1

11. Since that time, Plaintiffs’ counsel have endeavored to have all of the named

2 Plaintiffs and identified putative class members (or their successor heirs in some cases) referred

3 to on Exhibit 1, approve the settlement and sign the settlement release, subject to this Court’s

4 final approval. To date, all of the identified individual Plaintiffs/identified putative class

5 members or their successor heirs listed on Exhibit 1 have signed the settlement release and have

6 approved the settlement.

7

12. Defendants have offered to settle the monetary damage claims of the individual

8 Plaintiffs and putative class members specified on Exhibit 1 for a total gross settlement sum of

9 $6,500.00.00 (six million, five hundred thousand dollars).

10

13. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the distribution of this gross settlement

11 sum is to be determined between the individual plaintiffs/putative class members listed on

12 Exhibit 1 and their attorneys. In executing the individual releases, the individual

13 plaintiffs/putative class members identified on Exhibit 1 are also approving their individual

14 shares of the settlement proceeds and the net amount of the settlements they will receive after

15 payment of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to their contingency fee contracts with Plaintiffs’

16 counsel. Some of the settling Plaintiffs/putative class members may elect to have their net

17 recoveries paid pursuant to structured settlements. The distribution of the Minor’s settlements

18 will be subject to the Court’s Orders on the applications for approval of the Minors’

19 compromises.

20

14. The valuation of the individual claims of the Plaintiffs/putative class members listed

21 on Exhibit 1 is based on an assessment of their personal injuries, lost wages, time spent in

22 custody, the underlying criminal actions brought against them, their prior and/or subsequent

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 14
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page15 of 16

1 experience in the criminal justice system, the impact to them as individuals and on their families

2 and any medical expenses or other out of pocket losses they may have incurred.

3

15. Under the proposed settlement, Defendants’ counsel will issue a settlement draft

4 payable to Plaintiffs’ counsel who will then be responsible for distributing the settlement

5 proceeds pursuant to written distributions approved by the individual Plaintiffs/putative class

6 members (or their heirs in some cases where the heirs have been substituted for deceased

7 plaintiffs) identified on Exhibit 1. Each individual settling Plaintiff/putative class member will

8 also pay a pro-rata share of the litigation costs and attorneys’ fees will be distributed from the

9 settlement funds to Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to the contingency fee contracts signed by the

10 Plaintiffs and/or pursuant to the Orders of the Court approving the compromises of the claims of

11 the Minor Plaintiffs/putative class members.

12

16. In addition to the monetary settlement sum referred to above, the City of Oakland has

13 agreed to enter into a separate agreement to settle the non-monetary relief claims of the Plaintiffs

14 which will include specific reforms intended to prevent a recurrence of the kind of misconduct

15 that occurred in this case. The Settlement Agreement regarding the non-monetary relief issues

16 will be presented to the Court under separate cover. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the

17 enforcement of the non-monetary relief Settlement Agreement. Defendant City of Oakland shall

18 be responsible for paying all the costs of implementing the terms of the non-monetary relief

19 Settlement Agreement. The Oliver Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to waive any claim for

20 attorneys’ fees against Defendants for work performed on the non-monetary relief issues through

21 September 15, 2010. The Court shall also have jurisdiction to make all appropriate orders which

22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 15
25

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document61 Filed08/05/10 Page16 of 16

1 are just, proper and which are fair to the parties and their respective counsel with respect to the

2 enforcement of the non-monetary Settlement Agreement. (Chanin decl.).

3

17. In consideration of the monetary settlement referred to above, the individual

4 Plaintiffs/putative class members identified on Exhibit 1 have agreed, subject to Court approval,

5 to dismiss both their monetary relief individual claims and any claims they may have as putative

6 class members with prejudice.

7

18. Under the terms of the settlement, however, the Oliver class action will be dismissed

8 without prejudice as to the claims of any absent putative class members not identified on Exhibit

9 1 so as to not prejudice the claims of any absent putative class members.

10

19. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and accurate

11 of my own personal knowledge. Executed this 5th day of August 2010, at Berkeley, California.

12

13

___________/s/______________________

JAMES B. CHANIN

14

Attorney for Plaintiffs

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

{00811072.PDF}STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 16
25

 </s> Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document66 Filed08/10/10 Page1 of 3

JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 9462 1 (510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com
JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043) JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968) Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94705 (510) 848-4752; FAX: (5 10) 848-5819 Email: jbcofc@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs REGINALD OLIVER, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs,

)

) )

MASTER CASE NO: COO-4599 TEH OLIVER CASE NO: C08-04914 TEH

) JACKSON CASE NO: C08-4984 TEH

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants.
REGINALD OLIVER, et al.,

) 7

1 ORDER ON STIPULATED

) MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

) SETTLEMENT )

)

) )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

VS.

)

)

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

)

)
)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

) {OOS 1l069.PDF)
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

1

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document66 Filed08/10/10 Page2 of 3

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants.

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation for Approval of Settlement, the Declaration ~f Counsel, the pleadings and other materials on file herein, and good cause appearing therefor:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement of the claims for monetary relief as iescribed in the Stipulated Motion be and the same hereby is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all class based claims for monetary relief be 3nd the same hereby are dismissed with prejudice; however, the claims for monetary relief of an; 3bsent putative class members not identified on Exhibit 1 to the Stipulated Motion for Approval 3f Settlement are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the approval by this Court of the compromise of 3ny claims brought by minor plaintiffs-putative class members and the full and final payment of the settlement sum to the plaintiffs' counsels' client trust account, then the monetary relief zlaims of the individual plaintiffs-putative class members identified on Exhibit 1 to the Stipulated Motion for Approval of Settlement will be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court hereby retains jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims for non-monetary relief. IT IS SO ORDERED.

De*dat:

- UNId TED STW ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(008 11069.PDF) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
2

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document66 Filed08/10/10 Page3 of 3

4PPROVED AS TO FORM: lated: August 5,2010 lated: August 5,2010 Iated: August 5,2010 lated: August 5,2010

151 JOHN L. BURRIS Attorney for the Oliver Plaintiffs
Is/ JAMES B. CHANIN Attorney for the Oliver Plaintiffs
151 RANDOLPH W. HALL Attorney for Defendants
151 TERENCE CASSIDY Attorney for Defendants

(008 11069.PDFJ [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
3

 </s> 1 JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
2 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621
3 (510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com
4 JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)
5 JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968) Law Offices of James B. Chanin
6 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94705
7 (510) 848-4752; FAX: (510) 848-5819 Email: jbcofc@aol.com
8 (Doc No. 746343)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 REGINALD OLIVER, et al.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

REGINALD OLIVER, et al., 14
Plaintiffs,

) ) MASTER CASE NO: C00-4599 TEH ) OLIVER CASE NO: C08-04914 TEH

15 vs.
16'
17 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
18 Defendants.

)

) ) )

STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF MOTION TO SETTLE NON-MONETAR
RELIEF CLAIMS, INCLUDING PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS IN THE

) MATTER OF OLIVER, ET AL V. CITY

) OF OAKLAND, ET AL.MASTER CASE

) NO. C00-4599 TEH AND OLIVER CASE

) NO. COS-04914 TEH AND [.I!H:8P6~EIJT

19

)

ORDER

20

21

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 1

1
2
I. INTRODUCTION
3 The Oliver, et al. Plaintiffs commenced this action as a putative class action under
4 F.R.C.P. 23. The class was never certified and this matter did not proceed as a class action. The
5 Court previously approved the settlement of the monetary relief claims of the identified putative
6 class members and dismissed the claims ofthe absent class members without prejudice.
7 Following the settlement of the monetary relief claims, counsel for the parties continued to
8 negotiate the non-monetary relief settlement to eliminate any unconstitutional practices
9 pertaining to City employees seeking or executing remedy search warrants.
10 The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement ("the Agreement") ofthe
11 remaining non-monetary relief claims and are moving the Court for an Order approving the
12 settlement of the non-monetary relief claims. Counsel for both parties believe that the proposed
13 settlement of the non-monetary relief claims is fair and reasonable and hope that the procedures,
14 supervision, training and auditing requirements under the revised search warrant and confidential
15 informant policies will avoid a recurrence ofthe searches and seizures that led to the alleged
16 violation of the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights in this case.
17

18 A. THE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE DEEMED A SETTLEMENT OF THE

19

PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS CLAIMS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(E)

20
1. This action was commenced as a class action. The class was not certified.

21

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24
2

1

2. Until2003, F.R.C.P. 23 (e) provided that a pre-certification settlement in a

2

putative class action was subject to the approval of the Court to ensure that the

3

settlement was not collusive or prejudicial. See e.g., Diaz v. Trust Territory ofthe

4

Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir.1989). In 2003, F.R.C.P. 23(e) was

5

amended as follows: "The claims, issues, or defenses ofa certified class may be

6

settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval."

7

(Emphasis added).

8

3. Rule 23, as amended, does not expressly state that approval of settlements in

9

uncertified cases is not required and the Ninth Circuit has not yet clarified this

10

issue. See, e.g., Holmes v. Collection Bureau ofAmerica, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist.

11

LEXIS 5108 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

12

4. The Agreement resolves the injunctive relief claims and provides that the Court

13

retains jurisdiction for two years, during which time the parties may petition for

14

redressgertaining to compliance with the Agreement.

15

5. Due to the uncertainty of the current state of the law in the Ninth Circuit with

16

respect to whether Court approval is still required for pre-certification settlements

17

in putative class actions, the parties believe it is necessary to obtain the Court's

18

approval of the Agreement in order to establish that the settlement, without formal

19

notice to the putative class, is fair and reasonable and does not prejudice the

20

absent class members and was not the product of collusion if the Ninth Circuit

21

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 3

1

determines that Court approval is required for settlements in putative class actions

2

which have not been certified.

3

6. The parties cite Miller v. Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 2002 U.S. Dist.

4

LEXIS 9329 (E.D. PA, May 23, 2002), in which the Court approved a pre-

5

certification damages settlement of a putative class action without notice to the

6

putative class where the claims ofthe absent putative class members were being

7

dismissed without prejudice. In that case, just as in the instant case, Plaintiffs'

8

counsel sought to identify as many of the individual, putative class members as

9

possible, obtained the agreement of all the identified class members to the

10

monetary relief settlement, and the Court previously determined that the proposed

11

monetary settlement terms were fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

12

13

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

14

A. BACKGROUND OF THE UNDERLYING CASE

15

The Oliver, eta/. Plaintiffs alleged that the subject case arose from a pattern and practice

16 by members of the Oakland Police Department of submitting warrant affidavits that contained

17 deliberately false or recklessly inaccurate information to the Alameda Superior Court in support

18 of the issuance of search warrants in narcotics cases. Plaintiffs further alleged that as a result of 19 customs, policies and practices ofthe City of Oakland, they suffered the violation of their rights

20 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when they were subjected to

21 unreasonable searches and seizures.

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 4

1

B. TERMS OF AGREEMENT

2

1. City of Oakland Departmental Training bulletin ("TB I-F"), Search Warrant Tracking

3

Sheet ("TF-3343") and Drug analysis Examination Request ("TF-3341") and Oakland

4

Chief of Police Anthony Batts' Order dated November 12, 201 0 ("Chief Batts'

5

Order") are incorporated by reference into the terms and conditions of this Agreement

6

and the City agrees to comply in the entirety with the requirements of each of the

7

above set forth documents.

8

2. A true and accurate copy of each of these documents is attached to this Agreement.

9

Chief Batts' Order is attached as Exhibit 1. TB I-F is attached as Exhibit 2. TF-3343

10

is attached as Exhibit 3 and TF-3341 is attached as Exhibit 4.

11

3. Compliance with the requirements of each of the above set forth documents in their

12

entirety, means, inter alia, that the City agrees to comply with all reviews, document

13

preservation and audit provisions set forth in these documents, including any review,

14

document preservation and audit requirements set forth in any document, for example

15

the City Confidential Informant Policy (DG0-04), that governs procedures that City

16

employees must follow when seeking a search warrant. DG0-04 is attached as

1 7

Exhibit 5, by way of example.

18

a. A summary of some of the essential terms that are incorporated into and

19

made an integral part of this Agreement is:

20

21

22 STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 5

1

• TB I-F requires, inter alia, supervisors and commanders to review the affidavit

2

prepared by her or his subordinate in support of each search warrant prepared.

3

• This review must be completed prior to allowing the affidavit to be submitted to a

4

judicial officer and, inter alia, must: 1. verify that the information contained in the

5

affidavit can be verified by the affiant; 2. seek to determine ifthere are any

6

misstatements, errors, inaccuracies or omissions of the factual basis for the

7

seeking the warrant.

8

• Prior to submitting a search warrant affidavit to a judicial officer, the reviewing

9

supervisor and commander must complete form TF-3343. Form TF-3343

10

documents that the supervisors and commanders have discharged their duties

11

pursuant to TB I-F to review the affidavits and other documents prepared by their

12

subordinates to seek a search warrant and that the documents comport with the

13

requirements ofTB I-F.

14

• TB I-F also mandates the procedure to which City employees must adhere when

15

requesting that the Criminalistics Division conduct drug evidence testing.

16

• All requests for testing suspected narcotics related to an Oakland Police

17

investigation are made by the Narcotics Charging Unit. The Narcotics Charging

18

Unit must submit, in writing to the Criminalistics Division, all requests for drug

19

testing. The submission must be made using form TF-3341.

20

• The Criminal Investigation Division Commander is the custodian of records for

21

copies of search warrant affidavits, search warrants and other documents

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24
6

1

generated by the search warrant application process or directly pertaining to such

2

records.

3

• The City shall comply in the entirety with the review and audit provisions set

4

forth in TB 1-F, including all forms, training requirements and Orders referenced

5

in TB I-F. The training requirement specifically requires POST search warrant

6

training for all sworn members ofthe Oakland Police Department.

7

• The City shall comply with Chief Batts' Order, establishing that supervisors and

8

commanders are responsible for ensuring their subordinates read and understand

9

the revised search warrant policy and that they access the POST Learning Portal

10

for the required search warrant training.

11

• Pursuant to Chief Batts' Order, the Commander of the Bureau oflnvestigation is

12

the "evaluation coordinator" responsible for assessing implementation and

13

compliance with TB I-F. Compliance includes forwarding the required six-month

14

evaluation report to the Chief of Police.

15

• The City shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with copies of the relevant parts of the

16

Monthly Management Reports and annual internal and external audits

17

documenting monthly inspections and annual audits generated by or incident to

18

TB I-F, including summaries of the source documents, within 30 days ofthe

19

completion of any such audit and/or inspection for a period of two years

20

beginning the date that the court approves this Agreement.

21

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 7

1

• The Court shall retain jurisdiction of Oliver, et al case for a period of two years

2

beginning the date on which the Court affixes its seal of approval to this

3

Agreement.

4

• During the time that the Court retains jurisdiction of Oliver, et al, either party may

5

petition the Court for relief as is appropriate. Plaintiffs' counsel has the right to

6

move the Court for appropriate remedies, including contempt, ifthere is legally

7

sufficient evidence establishing that City employees failed to fully implement TB

8

I-F; or have failed to comply with the terms ofTB I-F, including failure to

9

conduct the required audits, reviews and/or inspections required by TB I-F.

10

• Failure to fully implement, enforce and comply with TB I-F, including failure to

11

fully implement the audit, review and/or inspect functions pursuant to TB I-F

12

shall, absent good cause, constitute a material breach of this Agreement, entitling

13

Plaintiffs' counsel to move the Court for any and all appropriate relief that the

14

Court may deem to be just and proper. Prior to making any such motion to the

15

Court, Plaintiffs' counsel shall meet and confer in good faith with counsel for the

16

City of Oakland to attempt to resolve the issues of concern to Plaintiffs.

17

• If Plaintiffs demonstrate that members ofthe City of Oakland have failed, absent

18

good cause, to implement, enforce, comply with and/or audit, inspect and/or

19

review the revised warrant policy, Plaintiffs' counsel shall, at the discretion of the

20

Court, be entitled, pursuant to motion, to an award of reasonable attorney fees and

21

costs. The City shall, at the discretion of the Court, be entitled to its reasonable

22

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 8

and

1 reports and such other documents that reflect fact intensive information gathered

2

and compiled in the course of business at, during or shortly after the initial stages

3

of field operations incident to seeking, executing or prosecution incident to

4

obtaining search warrants.

5 • The City reserves the right, absent court order, to withhold from disclosure to
6 Plaintiffs any document or material, the disclosure of which presents a reasonable
7 threat to the life or safety of persons or which could compromise the ability of the
8 City to use constitutionally permissible law enforcement methods.
9

• If the City withholds any documents or other materials from disclosure from the 10
Plaintiffs, the City shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a privilege log in a timely 11

manner which describes the materials being withheld and the reasons with 12

sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiffs' counsel to determine whether a motion 13

to compel the disclosure of such documents and/or materials is warranted. Any 14

such privilege log shall be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel at the time when the 15
City's disclosure would otherwise be required by this Agreement. 16

• The City reserves its right not to disclose all source documents to Plaintiffs on the 17

ground that to do so will be unduly administratively burdensome. 18

19

• The City will produce summaries of source documents attesting compliance as set

20

forth in this Agreement.

21

• The City agrees that, on or before February 18, 2011, it will provide Plaintiffs

22

with a description of the source materials that are not being produced. The

STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 10

1

description will be of sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiffs to seek additional

2

information if Plaintiffs believe it is necessary to so do.

3

• The parties agree to submit unresolved questions regarding disclosure of any

4

information, including, but not limited to source documents and confidential

5

information to the court for "in camera" inspection and resolution.

6

7

III. STIPULATION

8

THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, DO HEREBY

9 STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT the proposed non-monetary relief settlement, including

10 settlement of the putative class injunctive relief claims, described in the Agreement should be

11 approved and that the Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for a period of two (2) years

12 beginning the date on of Court approval, to entertain motions or requests by the parties

13 pertaining to compliance with the terms of the non-monetary relief settlement by the City of

14 Oakland and to grant relief as appropriate, to the parties.

15 IT IS SO STIPULATED:
16 Dated: February _9, 2011
17
18 Dated: February 9 , 2011
19

JOHN L. BURRIS Attorney for the Oliver Plaintiffs
/S/

20

f.ehnJ~~

Dated:.January ~. 2011

21

City Administrator, City of Oakland

22 STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF SETTLEMENT

23

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

24 11

TATES DISTRICT C

UNITED S
ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

14

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson
ERN DISTRICT OF C

 </s> Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 1 of 19
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,PROTO,REFSET−MEJ,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:08−cv−04914−TEH

Oliver v. City of Oakland et al Assigned to: Hon. Thelton E. Henderson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/28/2008 Date Terminated: 02/15/2011 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Reginald Oliver individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated

represented by James B. Chanin Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 510−848−4752 Fax: 510−848−5819 Email: jbcefiling@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Burris Law Offices of John L. Burris 7677 Oakport Street, Ste 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 510−839−5200 Fax: 510−839−3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie M. Houk James B. Chanin Law Offices 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 510−848−4752 Fax: 510−848−5819 Email: juliemhouk@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joseph Batieste, Jr. Plaintiff

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Antoinette McCullough Plaintiff

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Delandro Brown Plaintiff

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 2 of 19

Dannie Carter, Sr. Plaintiff

Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lawrence Graham Plaintiff

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mesiah Shaw Plaintiff

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nedya Shaw

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Grace Foster

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dannie Carter, Jr.

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff A Minor N. O.

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Biggins

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ricketa Lynn Matthews

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cheryl Hopkins

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 3 of 19

Travis Hopkins

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Casey

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Humberto Torres

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff All Plaintiffs

represented by John L. Burris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Oakland

represented by Randolph W. Hall City Attorney's Office City of Oakland One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238−7686 Fax: (510) 238−6500 Email: rwhall@oaklandcityattorney.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Q. Rowell City Attorney's Office City of Oakland One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238−6520 Fax: (510) 238−6500 Email: SQRowell@oaklandcityattorney.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robert Whitefleet Porter Scott A Professional Corporation 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 916/929−1481 Fax: 916/927−3706 Email: jwhitefleet@porterscott.com TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Terence J. Cassidy Porter I Scott

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 4 of 19
A Professional Corporation 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95865 (916) 929−1481 Fax: (916) 927−3706 Email: tcassidy@porterscott.com TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Defendant
Karla Rush individually and in her capacity as a police officer for the City of Oakland

V. Movant The Estate of Jerry A. Amaro III
Movant Geraldine Montoya
Movant Stephanie Montoya
Movant Nicole White Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 501−848−4752, Ex. 2 Movant to relate cases
Movant Patricia Wilson Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 510−848−4752, Ex. 2 Movant re related cases

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/28/2008
10/28/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; with jury demand, against City of Oakland, Karla Rush ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 44611002762.). Filed byReginald Oliver. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/2008)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 1/28/2009. Case Management Conference set for 2/4/2009 03:00 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2008: # 1 Standing Order − SBA) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/2008)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 5 of 19

10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/05/2008 11/10/2008
11/12/2008
11/12/2008 12/03/2008 12/10/2008 12/16/2008
12/17/2008 01/14/2009 01/26/2009 01/28/2009 02/02/2009

3 MOTION to Relate Case C−00−4599−TEH filed by Reginald Oliver. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/2008)
4 Summons Issued as to City of Oakland, Karla Rush. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
5 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/4/2009 03:00 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
6 ORDER REASSIGNING and RELATING CASE to C00−4599 TEH. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/04/08. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
Cases associated: Create association to 3:00−cv−04599−TEH. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
Case Reassigned to Judge Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Judge Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong no longer assigned to the case. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
7 CLERKS NOTICE: Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/9/2009 01:30 PM. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2008) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed byJoseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw, Reginald Oliver. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
9 ORIGINAL SUMMONS in a Civil Case Returned Unexecuted Filed by Plaintiffs Reginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham & Mesiah Shaw as to Defendants City of Oakland & Karla Rush. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2008) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
10 SUMMONS on First Amended Complaint Issued as to Defendants City of Oakland & Karla Rush. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2008) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
11 NOTICE by City of Oakland (Of Related Case) (Rowell, Stephen) (Filed on 12/3/2008) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
12 ORDER RELATING CASE to C08−4984 CW. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/09/08. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
13 STIPULATION and [Propsoed] Protective Order re: City of Oakland Police Department Personnel, Criminal Investigation, Internal Affairs and Discipline Records by City of Oakland. (Rowell, Stephen) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
14 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER re: Oakland Police Department's records. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/17/08. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2008) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
15 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
16 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 2/5/09 at 10:00 a.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
ADR Remark: The ADR Phone Conference has been rescheduled to 2/4/09 at 1:00 p.m. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
17 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Reginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/2/2009) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 6 of 19

02/04/2009 02/06/2009
02/06/2009 02/09/2009 02/09/2009 02/19/2009
02/20/2009
02/23/2009 02/24/2009 02/25/2009 02/26/2009
03/02/2009 03/04/2009 03/11/2009

ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by RWS on 2/4/09. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2009) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
18 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Nedya Shaw, Grace Foster, Dannie Carter, Jr, Nicole Jackson, N. O., Anthony Biggins, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Daniel Casey, Humberto Torres, Reginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
19 STIPULATION and Proposed Order for Continuance of Case Management Statement by City of Oakland. (Rowell, Stephen) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
20 STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing the Initial Case Management Conference to 3/2/2009 at 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/06/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
21 STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING leave to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/06/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint against City of Oakland, Karla Rush. Filed byReginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Grace Foster, Dannie Carter, Jr, Nicole Jackson, N. O., Anthony Biggins, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Daniel Casey, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/19/2009) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
23 SUMMONS on First Amended Complaint Returned Unexecuted Filed by Plaintiffs Reginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Grace Foster, Dannie Carter, Jr, Nicole Jackson, N. O., Anthony Biggins, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Daniel Casey & Humberto Torres as to Defendants City of Oakland & Karla Rush. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2009) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
24 SUMMONS on Second Amended Complaint Issued as to Defendants City of Oakland & Karla Rush. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2009) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
25 STIPULATION (Amended) and [Propsoed] Protective Order Re: City of Oakland Police Department Personnel, Criminal Investigation, Internal Affairs and Discipline Records by City of Oakland. (Rowell, Stephen) (Filed on 2/24/2009) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
26 Amended STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/25/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
27 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplement to Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Reginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Grace Foster, Dannie Carter, Jr, Nicole Jackson, N. O., Anthony Biggins, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Daniel Casey, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/26/2009) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
28 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/2/2009 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Case Management Conference set for 6/22/2009 at 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
29 NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 03/04/09. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
30 MOTION to Relate Case to The Estate of Jerry A. Amaro, Case No. C09−01019 MEJ filed by The Estate of Jerry A. Amaro III, Geraldine Montoya, Stephanie Montoya. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 7 of 19

05/11/2009
06/15/2009
06/22/2009 06/22/2009 06/24/2009 09/14/2009
09/17/2009 09/21/2009 09/23/2009 11/19/2009 11/23/2009 12/09/2009 12/17/2009 01/19/2010 01/21/2010

31 SUMMONS on Second Amended Complaint Returned Executed Filed by PlaintiffsReginald Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Antoinette McCullough, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Sr., Lawrence Graham, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Grace Foster, Dannie Carter, Jr, Nicole Jackson, N. O., Anthony Biggins, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Daniel Casey, Humberto Torres Upon Defendant Karla Rush Served Personally to Bob Rush on 5/2/2009. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2009) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
32 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Further Case Management Conference Statement filed by Joseph Batieste, Jr., Anthony Biggins, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Jr, Dannie Carter, Sr., Daniel Casey, Grace Foster, Lawrence Graham, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Nicole Jackson, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Antoinette McCullough, N. O., Reginald Oliver, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
33 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/22/2009 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Larson for Settlement Conference. Case Management Conference set for 9/21/2009 at 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/22/2009) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James Larson for Settlement. (cmw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2009) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
34 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge James Larson. Settlement Conference set for 9/16/2009 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge James Larson on 6/24/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2009) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
35 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Further Case Management Conference Statement filed by Joseph Batieste, Jr., Anthony Biggins, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Jr, Dannie Carter, Sr., Daniel Casey, Grace Foster, Lawrence Graham, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Nicole Jackson, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Antoinette McCullough, N. O., Reginald Oliver, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
36 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference was held on 9/17/09. The case did not settle. (Date Filed: 9/17/2009). (Court Reporter n/a.) (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
37 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/21/2009 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Case Management Conference set for 11/30/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/21/2009) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
38 ORDER re: Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. No relief ordered at this time. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/23/09. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
39 STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Reginald Oliver. (Burris, John) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
40 STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing the Case Management Conference to 2/8/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/20/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
41 MOTION to Relate Case by Plaintiffs in Nicole White, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C09−05743 WHA filed by Nicole White, Patricia Wilson. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 12/9/2009) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
42 CLERKS NOTICE: This case is NOT related to C09−5743 WHA. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2009) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
43 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel, Julie Houk to the Honorable James Larson. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 1/19/2010) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
44 ORDER SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE re 43 Letter filed by Cheryl Hopkins, Nedya Shaw, Humberto Torres, Antoinette McCullough, Mesiah Shaw, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Daniel Casey, N. O., Lawrence Graham, Reginald

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 8 of 19

01/21/2010 01/26/2010
01/27/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010 03/01/2010
03/08/2010 03/09/2010
06/07/2010
06/09/2010

Oliver, Joseph Batieste, Jr., Dannie Carter, Sr., Nicole Jackson, Anthony Biggins, Grace Foster, Travis Hopkins, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Jr. Signed by Judge James Larson on 1/21/10. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2010) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
***Deadlines Terminated. Set Deadlines/Hearings: Further Settlement Conference set for 3/1/2010 at 10:15 AM. before Mag. Judge James Larson. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
45 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Continuing Case Management Conference to March 8, 2010 by Joseph Batieste, Jr., Anthony Biggins, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Jr, Dannie Carter, Sr., Daniel Casey, City of Oakland, Grace Foster, Lawrence Graham, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Nicole Jackson, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Antoinette McCullough, N. O., Reginald Oliver, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 1/26/2010) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
46 STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing the Case Management Conference to 3/8/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/27/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
47 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel to Judge Larson Re Continuance of Settlement Conference from 3.1.10 to 4.27.10 at 10:00 a.m.. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/25/2010) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
48 Order ReSetting A Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge James Larson. Settlement Conference set for 4/27/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge James Larson on 2/25/10. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2010) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
49 NOTICE by City of Oakland DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL (Rowell, Stephen) (Filed on 2/25/2010) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
***Deadlines Terminated. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
50 Joint Further Case Management Conference Statement Filed by Joseph Batieste, Jr., Anthony Biggins, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Jr, Dannie Carter, Sr., Daniel Casey, City of Oakland, Grace Foster, Lawrence Graham, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Nicole Jackson, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Antoinette McCullough, N. O., Reginald Oliver, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 3/1/2010) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
51 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/8/2010 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Trial date and schedule set. Case Management Conference set for 6/14/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. This matter is also referred to Mag. Judge James for settlement. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/8/2010) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
52 ORDER for PRETRIAL PREPARATION: Discovery due by 1/18/2011. Jury Trial set for 4/19/2011 08:30 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco for 20−25 days. Motion Hearing set for 2/28/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Motions due by 1/24/2011. Pretrial Conference set for 4/4/2011 03:00 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. The matter is also referred to Mag. Judge James for a backup settlement conference. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/08/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2010) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
53 Joint Further Case Management Conference Statement filed by Joseph Batieste, Jr., Anthony Biggins, Delandro Brown, Dannie Carter, Jr, Dannie Carter, Sr., Daniel Casey, City of Oakland, Grace Foster, Lawrence Graham, Cheryl Hopkins, Travis Hopkins, Nicole Jackson, Ricketa Lynn Matthews, Antoinette McCullough, N. O., Reginald Oliver, Mesiah Shaw, Nedya Shaw, Humberto Torres. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 6/7/2010) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
54 Letter from John L. Burris & Proposed Order to Request for Permission to Telephonically Appear at June 14, 2010 Case Management Conference. (Burris, John) (Filed on 6/9/2010) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 9 of 19

06/10/2010 06/11/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010
08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010
08/10/2010

55 ORDER allowing telephonic appearance by plaintiffs' counsel at the case management conference on 06/14/10. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/10/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2010) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
56 Proposed Order GRANTING REQUEST TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE AT FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by City of Oakland. (Whitefleet, John) (Filed on 6/11/2010) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
57 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin Re: Request to Appear via Telephone at further CMC on June 14, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 6/14/2010) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
58 Proposed Order re 57 Letter Requesting Leave by Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin, to Appear via Telephone at June 14, 2010 further CMC by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 6/14/2010) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
59 ORDER allowing defense counsel to appear by phone at the case management conference. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/14/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2010) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
60 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/14/2010 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Case Management Conference set for 9/13/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/14/2010) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
61 Stipulated Motion for Approval of Settlement filed by City of Oakland. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Stipulated Motion, #(2) Proposed Order Proposed Order). (Cassidy, Terence) (Filed on 8/5/2010) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
62 Administrative Motion to File Plaintiffs' Ex−Parte Applications for Approval of Minors' Compromises and Related Orders Under Seal filed by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/5/2010) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
63 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration in Support Thereof filed by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/5/2010) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
64 [Proposed] Order Granting re 62 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Ex−parte Applications for Orders Approving Minors Compromises & Related Proposed Orders Under Seal filed by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/5/2010) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
65 Administrative Motion to File Ex−parte Applications for Orders Approving Minors' Compromises & Related Proposed Orders Under Seal −− Correction of Docket # 62 , 63 & 64 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #(1) Affidavit Declaration in Support of Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, #(2) Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Under Seal)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/5/2010) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
66 ORDER on Stipulated Motion for Approval of Settlement re 61 . Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/2010. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
67 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 65 Administrative Motion to File Ex Parte Applications for Orders Approving Minors' Compromises and Related Proposed Orders Under Seal (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
68 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE (Petitioner, An Tran, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D. L.) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Deposit of Minor's Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
69 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE (Petitioner, Nicole Jackson, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, N.O.) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Minor's Compromise)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 10 of 19

08/10/2010
08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010

70 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING MINORS COMPROMISE (Petitioner, Richard Parquet, Jr., on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J. P.) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Approval of Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Deposit)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
71 Ex Parte Application re 68 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Ex Parte Application for Order Approving Minor's Compromise re Minor Plaintiff D.L. [Redacted for Efiling] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise (Redacted), # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Deposit [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
72 Ex Parte Application re 70 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise Re Minor Plaintiff J.P. (Petitioner Richard Parquet)[Redacted for Efiling] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Deposit)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
73 Ex Parte Application re 69 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise of Minor Plaintiff N.O. [Redacted for Efiling] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
74 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Sandra Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, A.W. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
75 Ex Parte Application re 74 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Sandra Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, A.W. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
76 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Melanie Fields on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff A.A. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
77 ORDER, by Judge Thelton E. Henderson, signed 8/10/10,granting 71 Ex Parte Application for Order Approving Minor's Compromise (Petitioner An Tran) (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
78 ORDER, by Judge Thelton E. Henderson, signed 8/11/10,granting 72 Ex Parte Application for An Order Approving Minor's Compromise (Petitioner, Richard Parquet, Jr.) (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
79 ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF MINOR'S SETTLEMENT FUNDS (Petitioner Richard Parquet, Jr.). Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
80 ORDER, by Judge Thelton E. Henderson, signed 8/10/10,granting 73 Ex Parte Application for An Order Approving Minor's Compromise (Petitioner Nicole Jackson) (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
81 ORDER, by Judge Thelton E. Henderson, signed 8/10/10,granting 75 Ex Parte Application for An Order Approving Minor's Compromise (Petitioner Sandra Phelps). (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
82 ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF MINOR'S SETTLEMENT FUNDS (Petitioner Sandra Phelps). Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 11 of 19

08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010

83 Ex Parte Application re 68 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Correction of Docket # 71 . filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
84 Ex Parte Application re 76 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Melanie Fields on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff A.A. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
85 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Claudette Washington on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff D.W. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
86 Ex Parte Application re 85 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Ex Parte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Claudette Washington on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, D.W. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
87 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Claudette Washington on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, D.S. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
88 Ex Parte Application re 87 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Claudette Washington on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, D.S. filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
89 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Michelle Bowie on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, E.R.A. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
90 Ex Parte Application re 89 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Michelle Bowie on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, E.R.A. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
91 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by David Winston on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff E.B.W. (Female) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
92 Ex Parte Application re 91 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by David Winston on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, E.B.W. (Female)[Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
93 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by David Winston for Minor Putative Plaintiff E.B.W. (Male) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
94 Ex Parte Application re 93 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by David Winston on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff E.B.W. (Male)[Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 12 of 19

08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010

Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
95 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Sandra Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, H.W. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
96 Ex Parte Application re 95 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Sandra Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, H.W. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order For Approval of Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
97 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Nakia Benson on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, J.L. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
98 Ex Parte Application re 97 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Nakia Benson on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, J.L. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
99 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Mary Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, J.P. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
100 Ex Parte Application re 99 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted[, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
101 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Nakia Benson on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, K.W. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
102 Ex Parte Application re 101 Document E−Filed Under Seal, Approval of Minor's Compromise by Nakia Benson on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, K.W. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
111 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...EX−PARTE Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise filed by Petitioner Sandra Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, A.W. − re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Filed by Plaintiffs Reginald Oliver, et al.. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
112 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson Granting re 111 Ex−parte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Sandra Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Minor, A.W.. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
113 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 111 Ex−parte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise filed by Petitioner Sandra Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, A.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/2010. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 13 of 19

08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010

114 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 68 Document E−Filed Under Seal − Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner An Tran, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D.L.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
115 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 68 Document E−Filed Under Seal − Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner An Tran, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D.L.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Hendeson on 8/10/2010. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
116 [FILED UNDER SEAL]... ORDER Granting re 69 Document E−Filed Under Seal − Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Nicole Jackson, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, N.O.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/2010. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
117 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 70 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Richard Parquet, Jr. on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J.P.. Signed by Judge Thelton E.Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
118 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 70 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Richard Parquet, Jr., on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J.P.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
119 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 76 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Melanie Fields, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, A.A..Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
120 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 76 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Melanie Fields, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, A.A.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
121 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 85 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Claudette Washington, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
122 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 85 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Claudette Washington, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
123 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 87 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Claudette Washington, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D.S.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
124 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 87 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Claudette Washington, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, D.S.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
125 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 89 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Michelle Bowie, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, E.R.A..Signed

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 14 of 19

08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010

by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
126 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 89 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Michelle Bowie, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, E.R.A.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
127 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 91 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner David Winston, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, E.B.W..Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
128 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 91 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner David Winston, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, E.B.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
129 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 93 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner David Winston, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, E.B.W..Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
130 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 93 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner David Winston, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, E.B.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
131 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 95 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Sandra Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, H.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
132 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 95 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Sandra Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, H.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Hendeson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
133 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 97 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Nakia Benson, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J.L.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
134 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 97 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Nakia Benson, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J.L.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/11/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
135 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 99 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Mary Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J.P..Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
136 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 99 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Mary Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, J.P.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
137 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 101 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Nakia Benson, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, K.W..Signed by Judge

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 15 of 19

08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010

Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
138 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 101 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Nakia Benson, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, K.W.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
139 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 103 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Sandra Phelps, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, M.W.Jr..Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
140 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 105 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Richard Parquet, Jr., on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, R.P. III.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
141 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 105 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Compromise by Petitioner Richard Parquet, Jr., on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, R.P.III. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
142 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 107 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Kniequell Glover, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, S.N.. Signed by Judge Thelton E.Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
143 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Granting re 109 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Michelle Bowie, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, S.G.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
144 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds re 109 Document E−Filed Under Seal− Exparte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise by Petitioner Michelle Bowie, on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member, S.G.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/10/10. (tnS, ) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
103 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Sandra Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, M.W. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
104 Ex Parte Application re 103 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Sandra Phelps on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, M.W. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
105 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Richard Parquet on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, R.P. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
106 Ex Parte Application re 105 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Richard Parquet on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, R.P. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 16 of 19

08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/31/2010 09/02/2010 09/03/2010 09/13/2010 09/16/2010
09/16/2010 09/17/2010 09/30/2010 10/01/2010

107 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Knieguell Glover on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, S.N. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
108 Ex Parte Application re 107 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Kniequell Glover on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, S.N.[Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
109 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 67 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Approval of Minor's Compromise by Michelle Bowie on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, S.G. by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise, # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
110 Ex Parte Application re 109 Document E−Filed Under Seal, For Approval of Minor's Compromise by Michelle Bowie on behalf of Minor Putative Plaintiff, S.G. [Redacted] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Minor's Compromise [Redacted], # 2 Proposed Order For Deposit of Funds [Redacted])(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
145 Ex−Parte Application to Amend re 87 Document E−Filed Under Seal, 123 Order, 124 Order −TO AMEND ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE OF MINORS CLAIM REGARDING THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS FOR MINOR PLAINTIFF, D.S., AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON− filed by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 8/31/2010) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
146 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting re 145 Ex−Parte Application to amend order. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
147 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City of Oakland. (Cassidy, Terence) (Filed on 9/3/2010) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
148 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/13/2010 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Status Conference set for 9/16/2010 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/13/2010) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
149 Ex Parte Application re 130 Order, 78 Order on Ex Parte Application, 126 Order, 125 Order, 132 Order, 135 Order, 144 Order, 81 Order on Ex Parte Application, 131 Order, 128 Order, 120 Order, 127 Order, 129 Order, 140 Order, 133 Order, 141 Order, 118 Order, 112 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 134 Order, 121 Order, 137 Order, 138 Order, 77 Order on Ex Parte Application, 115 Order, 143 Order, 82 Order, 122 Order, 79 Order, 113 Order, 119 Order, 114 Order, 136 Order, 117 Order, Ex Parte Application and Proposed Order Permitting Plaintiffs to EFile Redacted Receipts for Deposit of Minors' Settlement Funds in Lieu of Filing the Unredacted Receipts Under Seal. filed by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 9/16/2010) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
150 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/16/2010 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/16/2010) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
151 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting re 149 Ex−Parte Application permitting plaintiffs' counsel to file redacted receipts. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2010) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
152 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER FOR PRETRIAL PREPARATION Submitted by City of Oakland, Reginald Oliver. (Hall, Randolph) (Filed on 9/30/2010) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
153 STIPULATION and ORDER for Pretrial Preparation: Case Management Conference set for 11/29/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Trial set for 4/19/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco for an estimated 5 days. Motion Hearing set for 2/28/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 17 of 19

10/15/2010 10/15/2010 11/12/2010 11/22/2010 11/29/2010 12/08/2010 12/15/2010 01/10/2011
01/12/2011 01/12/2011
01/12/2011 01/12/2011

Floor, San Francisco. Pretrial Conference set for 3/28/2011 03:00 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. The matter is referred to Mag. Judge James for settlement. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/01/10. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2010) Modified on 10/1/2010 (rbe, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
154 NOTICE AND ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference re (153 in 3:08−cv−04914−TEH, 153 in 3:08−cv−04914−TEH) Order, Set Hearings. Settlement Conference set for 3/15/2011 10:00 AM.. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 10/15/10. (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2010) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
155 AMENDED NOTICE AND ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference re (154 in 3:08−cv−04914−TEH, 154 in 3:08−cv−04914−TEH) Order, Set Hearings Settlement Conference set for 3/15/2011 10:00 AM.. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 10/15/10. (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2010) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
***Deadlines terminated. 52 Pretrial date of 4/4/10. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2010) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
156 Joint Further CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/22/2010) Modified on 11/23/2010 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2010)
157 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/29/2010 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson (Date Filed: 11/29/2010) Further Case Management Conference rescheduled to Wednesday, 12/8/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Not Reported) (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/29/2010) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
158 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 12/8/2010 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson (Date Filed: 12/8/2010) (Not Reported) (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/8/2010) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
159 ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/15/2010 Withdrawing Attorney Terence J. Cassidy as co−counsel for Defendant City of Oakland in cases C−08−4914−TEH & C−08−4984−TEH. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
160 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Plaintiff's Counsel in Support of Administrative Motion to File Ex Parte Application Substituting James Bowie in Place of Michelle Bowie as Guardian ad Litem for Minor Plaintiffs E.R.A. and S.G. and Amending Order Approving Minors' Compromises and Orders for Deposit, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Ex Parte Application under Seal)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 1/10/2011) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
161 ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting re 160 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2011) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
162 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/12/2011 Granting Ex−parte Application for an Order Substituting James Bowie in Place of Michelle Bowie as Guardian Ad Litem for Minor Plaintiffs/Putative Class Members, and Amending Orders Approving Minors' Compromises to Change Depository; Declaration of James Bowie in Support Thereof. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2011) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
163 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...AMENDED ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/12/2011 for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2011) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
164 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...AMENDED ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/12/2011 Granting Ex−parte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2011) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 18 of 19

01/12/2011 01/12/2011 02/09/2011
02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/15/2011

165 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...AMENDED ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/12/2011 for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2011) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
166 [FILED UNDER SEAL]...AMENDED ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/12/2011 Granting Ex−parte Application for an Order Approving Minor's Compromise. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2011) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
167 STIPULATION STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF MOTION TO SETTLE NON−MONETARY RELIEF CLAIMS, INCLUDING PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS IN THE MATTER OF OLIVER, ET AL V. CITY OF OAKLAND, ET AL.MASTER CASE NO. C00−4599 TEH AND OLIVER CASE NO. C08−04914 TEH AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by City of Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Hall, Randolph) (Filed on 2/9/2011) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
168 REDACTION to 121 Order, 122 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Settlement Funds (Minor, D.W.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
169 REDACTION to 119 Order, 120 Order, Redacted Receipt for the Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, A.A.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
170 REDACTION to 117 Order, 118 Order, Redacted Receipt for the Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, J.P., Petitioner, R.Parquet, Sr.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
171 REDACTION to 135 Order, 136 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, J.P., Petitioner, M. Phelps) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
172 REDACTION to 115 Order, 114 Order, Redacted Receipt for the Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, D.L.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
173 REDACTION to 128 Order, 127 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, E.B.W. − female) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
174 REDACTION to 130 Order, 129 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, E.B.W. − Male) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
175 REDACTION to 132 Order, 131 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, H.W.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
176 REDACTION to 113 Order, 112 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, A.W.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
177 REDACTION to 134 Order, 133 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, J.L.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
178 REDACTION to 137 Order, 138 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, K.W.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
179 REDACTION to 140 Order, 141 Order, Redacted Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor, R.P.) by All Plaintiffs. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
180 STIPULATION AND ORDER for Approval of Motion to Settle Non−Monetary Relief Claims, Including Putative Class Claims in the Matter of Oliver, et al. v. City of Oakland. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/14/2011. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

Case: 3:08-cv-4914 As of: 02/14/2015 02:00 PM PST 19 of 19

03/14/2011 03/14/2011

181 REDACTION to re 163 Order, re 164 Order, re 166 Order, re 162 Order, re 165 Order −Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor S.G.)− filed by Plaintiffs Reginald Oliver, et al.. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 3/14/2011) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
182 REDACTION to re 163 Order, re 164 Order, re 166 Order, re 162 Order, re 165 Order −Receipt for Deposit of Minor's Funds (Minor E.R.A.)− filed by Plaintiffs Reginald Oliver, et al.. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 3/14/2011) (Entered: 03/14/2011)


[CONTENT] October 28, 2008 | African-American | 42 | 1983 | Oakland | California Police Department ||| U.S. | District Court | the Northern District | California ||| Fourth |||  ||| October 6, 2008 | Alameda County |||  ||| February 9, 2009 | second ||| African American | Hispanic ||| August 5, 2010 ||| The United States | Northern District | California | Thelton E. Henderson | 104 | 6,500.00 |||  |||  ||| February 14, 2011 ||| the Oakland Police Department |||  ||| Court | two years |||  |||  [SUMMARY] On October 28, 2008, an African-American man filed this class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Oakland, California Police Department and one of its officers. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, requested injunctive relief and monetary damages, alleging that the City unlawfully targeted citizens on the basis of race, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that officers of the police department had issued warrants based on intentionally false or misleading information, subjecting him to unreasonable search and seizure, arresting him without probable cause, and maliciously prosecuting him.  On October 6, 2008, the charges against the plaintiff were dismissed when the Alameda County District Attorney's Office discovered that the warrant had been illegally obtained. Although the charges were dismissed, the plaintiff alleged that as a result of the unreasonable search and seizure, he was unable to work causing a loss of income and suffered damages for pain and emotional distress. 

On February 9, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed. This complaint added plaintiffs, including African American and Hispanic men and women, who were allegedly subjected to unreasonable search and seizure stemming from illegally obtained warrants and many of whom had been subsequently arrested.  

On August 5, 2010, the plaintiffs submitted a stipulated motion for approval of settlement. The United States District Court Northern District of California (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) granted the motion where the City offered to settle the monetary relief claims of the 104 individual plaintiffs and putative class members for total gross settlement sum of $6,500.00 inclusive of all attorney fees and costs. After reaching this agreement, the parties continued with settlement discussions on non-monetary relief claims. Their discussions focused on specific reforms intended to remedy the kind of police misconduct that occurred in this case that would be of substantial benefit to the putative class. 

On February 14, 2011, the parties reached a non-monetary settlement agreement. The settlement set out specific procedures for the Oakland Police Department to obtain affidavits and warrants. The parties also agreed to set of protocols for drug evidence testing. The Court retained jurisdiction for two years from the settlement date so that the parties could petition for redress pertaining to compliance with their agreement. 

There is nothing substantive in the docket sheet following settlement.  Presumably the matter is closed.  