f

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page1 of 10

1 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM #112910 115-A Bartlett Street
2 San Francisco, CA 9411 0 415-285-8091; fax 415-285-8092
3 denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com

4 RACHEL LEDERMAN #130192

Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach, Attorneys

5 558 Capp Street

·

San Francisco, CA 9411 0

6 415-282-9300; fax 415-285-5066

rledennan@2momslaw.com

7

BOBB.IE-"STEIN #113239

8 5M1Jolores Street, #201

San Francisco, CA 9411 0-1564

9 (415) 255-030Ii· fax (510) 601-5780

bstein8692@ao .com

10

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

11

G FILED

zn'1 NOV zq P 2: 3b

.

1 /'SS t-CU;iPR\t.~'ItC.·~tlUjf\,.,•',

D· ~\W~{.

W~IICET.l\CIHOGll ~
ot 'r..:t.llrOilH\.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

~--1_2_ _6_0 5 7 13
14 -KA-YV-AN-S-AB-E-GH-I,------.

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS and OTHER

17 OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER FRANK WRONGS

18

UU OFFICER MARCELL PAtTERSON, SGT. PATRICK

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

19

GONZALEZ, individually and in their official ca_pacities; CITY OF OAKLAND;

20 AND DOES 1 - 100,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page2 of 10

2

I. INTRODUCTION

3 1. This is a civil rights complaint arising from Oakland Police officers' wrongful beating

4 and imprisonment of plaintiff Kayvan Sabeghi. These wrongs occurred in the wee hours

5 of November 3, 2011, during political demonstrations initiated by the Occupy Oakland

6 movement. Mr. Sabeghi had participated in the protest activity, gone out to dinner and

7 was making his way home when he encountered a police line blocking his path. When

8 Mr. Sabeghi, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, questioned and verbally criticized the

9 officers' actions, defendant Officer Frank Uu and other Oakland Police officers brutally

10 beat and arrested him in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.

11 2. Officer Uu and other officers beat plaintiff so viciously that they ruptured his splenic

12 vein, causing severe pain and internal bleeding. Rather than summoning medical attention

13 or taking plaintiff to the hospital, the Oakland Police officers proceeded to detain him at

14 various locations near City Hall for some hours, and then transferred him to the Alameda

15 County Jail, in further unlawful punishment for his First Amendment expression. Police

16 officers, jailers and jail medical personnel mocked and ignored his pleas for help. Plaintiff

17 was not taken to a hospital until approximately 18 hours after the beating. He had been

18 bleeding internally the entire time and was in dire condition necessitating immediate

19 emergency surgery.

20 3. Defendants' actions deprived plaintiff of his right to freedom of speech and

21 association; his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; his right to

22 equal protection of the laws and to due process of law; and his right to be free from the

23 use of excessive and/or arbitrary force; his right to be free from unreasonable, summary

24 punishment; and his right to personal liberty and freedom of movement, all guaranteed by

25 the United States and California Constitutions; and plaintiff has additional state law

26 claims arising from the police misconduct complained of, as described within.

27

28 SABEGH!v. UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 2

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page3 of 10

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
* 2 4. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States Constitution. This

3 Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. *§ 1331 and

4 1343. It has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5 5. The individual defendants are all public officials or other employees or agents of the

6 City of Oakland. Each of the defendants resides within this District and/or perfonns

7 official duties within the State of California. This Court, accordingly, has personal

8 jurisdiction over each of the defendants.

9 6. Plaintiff has filed an administrative claim with the City of Oakland in compliance

10 with California Government Code sections 910 et seq. The claim has been denied

11 expressly or by operation of law.
* 12 7. Venue properly lies within this District under 28 U.S.C. 139l(b). The named

13 defendants perfonn their official duties in this District, and the events and omissions

14 giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in this District.

15

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

16 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2, this action may properly be assigned to the San

17 Francisco or Oakland divisions of this Court.

18

IV. THE PARTIES

19

Plaintiff

20 9. Plaintiff KAYVAN SABEGHl is an adult citizen of the United States, a United

21 States Anny veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and a resident of Oakland, California.

22

Defendants

23 10. Defendants OFFICERS FRANK UU and MARCELL PATTERSON , were, at all

24 times relevant herein, members of the Oakland Police Department who participated in the

25 beating and unlawful detention of the plaintiff and the failure to summon medical care for

26 him.

27

28 SABEGHIF. UV - COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
3

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page4 of 10
II. Defendant SGT. PATRICK GONZALEZ participated in the supervision and 2 execution of the police conduct complained of. 3 12. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND ("the City") is a municipal corporation, duly 4 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Califomia. 5 13. All of the above individual defendants are sued in their individual and official 6 capacities. 7 14. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein 8 as DOES I through I00, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious 9 names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities 10 when ascertained. The Doe defendants include other individuals who participated in the 11 conduct complained of herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege 12 that each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable for the incident, injuries 13 and damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said defendants proximately caused 14 said incidents, injuries and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, 15 negligent supervision, management or control, violation of constitutional and legal rights, 16 or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, 17 whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control or 18 upon any other act or omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert 19 further charging allegations when such facts are ascertained. 20 15. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, acted within the 21 course and scope of their employment. 22 16. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, 23 acted under color of authority and/or under color of law. 24 17. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, 25 acted as the agent, servant, employee and/or in concert with each of said other defendants. 26
27 28
SABEGHI1•. UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
4

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page5 of 10
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 18. On November 2, 2011, thousands of people participated in political protest activities 3 in the City of Oakland in support of economic justice and in response to brutality by the 4 Oakland Police Department against the Occupy Oakland movement. Throughout the day 5 on November 2, thousands of people peacefully demonstrated, marched, danced, 6 picketed, and shut down the Port of Oakland, all without interference from the police. 7 Late that night. however. a large number of Oakland Police and assisting agencies· 8 officers converged on the area around 16th and Telegraph, where some activists had 9 occupied an empty building that had formerly housed a service agency for the homeless. I 0 19. Plaintiff had participated in the demonstration earlier that day, but then went out to II dinner with friends. After stopping at the newstand at 14th and Broadway, plaintiff was I2 starting to walk up Broadway to head for his home near 27th Street when his path was I3 blocked by a line of police officers. Plaintiff was alone, and the street at that location was I4 nearly empty, except for the line of officers. I5 20. Plaintiff asked to be allowed to pass, but the officers refused. Plaintiff was upset by I6 this arbitrariness and began verbally arguing with the officers and criticizing the police. I7 The police line began to move slowly forward, south on Broadway, and two DOE officers I8 jabbed plaintiff repeatedly with wooden clubs. Plaintiff retreated backward at a pace with I9 the police. At no time did plaintiff present a physical threat to the police. 20 21. Suddenly, defendant Uu came through the police line and confronted plaintiff, 2I cursing at him, and then struck him repeatedly with a club, driving him towards the west 22 sidewalk in front of the police line. Although plaintiff did not resist or fight back and was 23 not physically aggressive in any way, defendants Uu, Patterson, and other officers tackled 24 him at or near the curb with unnecessary and excessive force, piling on top of him and 25 violently twisting his anns. Plaintiff suffered internal injury as well as cuts and bruises. 26 There was no justification for the use of force on plaintiff. Defendant Sgt. Gonzalez and 27 other superiors failed to adequately supervise Ofcr. Uu and other officers, failed to 28
SA BEGHI v. UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 5

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page6 of 10
intervene, and approved and condoned the officers' unlawful conduct against plaintiff. 2 22. Defendants Uu, Patterson and other officers then lifted plaintiff up, walked him some 3 distance, and put him in an Oakland Police van, alone. He was left in the van for some 4 period of time, then made to sit on a curb with other handcuffed prisoners. During this 5 time, plaintiff asked the officers to wash the chemical agent from his face and to loosen 6 his painfully tight handcuffs, but they ignored him, and despite the severe force the 7 officers had used on him, the police failed to provide him with medical attention. 8 23. Eventually, defendants caused plaintiff to be put on a Sheriffs bus and taken to the 9 Alameda County Jail, in violation of their California statutory obligation to cite and I0 release a misdemeanor arrestee such as plaintiff and in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise II of his First Amendment rights. Defendants failed to communicate plaintiffs' need for I2 medical attention to the Alameda County personnel. 13 24. Plaintiff had been bleeding internally this entire time and once at the jail, he began to 14 experience severe pain and to vomit repeatedly. The Sheriff's personnel and medical 15 personnel at the jail ignored plaintiff's requests for help even though he was vomiting and 16 unable to stand. Rather than providing medical attention, the jail and medical personnel 17 ridiculed plaintiff, accusing him of being a heroin addict. Plaintiff was confined under 18 unreasonably unsanitary conditions, and moved from holding cell to holding cell, each 19 one filthy and stinking, as he continued to bleed internally. Even after a friend paid his 20 bail, he was not released for several more hours. Finally, an ambulance was brought and 21 he was taken to Alameda County Highland Hospital, some eighteen hours or more after 22 he was beaten by defendants. At the hospital, plaintiff received emergency surgery to 23 repair a ruptured blood vessel in his abdomen, caused by the police beating. He remained 24 in the hospital for five days. 25 25. The unreasonable delay in treatment exacerbated plaintiff's medical condition and 26 caused him additional, needless pain and suffering. 27 26. Plaintiff suffered pain and disability for approximately eight months following the 28
SABEGH/v. UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 6

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page7 of 10

police beating. He lost earnings as a result of his injuries, and was unable to participate in

2 many of his customary exercise and leisure activities.

3

VI. REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

4 27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of the plaintiffs constitutional

5 and lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives,

6 practices, acts and omissions of authorized policy makers of defendant CITY OF

7 OAKLAND, including Chief Howard Jordan and other supervisory officials of the OPD

8 and the City of Oakland, who encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the

9 unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of herein. Said customs, policies and

I 0 practices include, but are not limited to the use of excessive force and pre-charging

II imprisonment under inhumane conditions to disrupt and deter demonstrators and First

12 Amendment protected activity; the failure to maintain adequate policies, and to

13 adequately train, supervise and control OPD officers concerning the policing of

14 demonstrations and other expressive activities with respect to crowd control, and with

15 respect to the constitutional and statutory limitations on use of force, and with respect to

16 reasonable provision of medical attention to detainees who have been subjected to police

17 force or otherwise injured, and the requirements for citation and release of misdemeanor

18 arrestees.

19 28. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein,

20 plaintiff has been denied his constitutional, statutory and legal rights as stated below, and

21 has suffered general and special damages, including but not limited to, physical injuries

22 and bodily hann, pain, fear, mental and emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,

23 discomfort, anxiety and other damages in an amount according to proof.

24 29. Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done with

25 conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for plaintiffs rights.

26

27

28
SABEGHI v. UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 7

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page8 of 10

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2

ONE- VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

3 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 29 of this

4 complaint.

5 31. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintitTs rights to be free from

6 unreasonable seizures and unnecessary, excessive and/or arbitrary force, imprisonment

7 without reasonable or probable cause, unreasonable pre-charging punishment, and

8 unreasonable failure to provide medical care, under the Fourth Amendment to the United

9 States Constitution.

10

TWO- VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

11 32. Plaintiff re-al leges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 29 of this

12 complaint.

13 33. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs rights to freedom of speech

14 and association, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution .

15 THREE- VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

16 34. Plaintiff re-al leges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 of this

17 complaint.

18 35. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiff's right to not be deprived of

19 liberty without due process of law, and to equal protection of the laws, and to personal

20 liberty and freedom of movement, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

21 Constitution.

22

FOUR- ASSAULT AND BATTERY

23 36. Plaintiff re-alieges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 of this

24 complaint.

25 37. Defendants· above-described conduct constituted assault and battery.

26

27

28 SABEGH!v. UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
8

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page9 of 10

FIVE- FALSE IMPRISONMENT

2 38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 29 of this

3 complaint.

4 39. Defendants act of intentionally imprisoning plaintiff in the Alameda County Jail,

5 rather than citing and releasing plaintiff, in violation of Penal Code section 853.6,

6 constituted false imprisonment.

7

SIX- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE§ 51.7

8 40. Plaintiff re-alieges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 29 of this

9 complaint.

I 0 41 . Defendants' above-described conduct violated piaintiff s right to be free from

II violence and intimidation by threat of violence because of his actual or perceived race,

12 color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation and/or viewpoint, in violation

13 of California Civil Code section 51.7.

14

SEVEN- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE§ 52.1

15 42. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 29 of this

16 complaint.

17 43. Defendants' above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted

18 interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs peaceable exercise and

19 enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the

20 State of California, in violation of California Civil Code section 52.1.

21

EIGHT- NEGLIGENCE

22 44. Plaintiff re-al leges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 29 of this

23 complaint.

24 45. Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiff to ensure that defendants did not cause

25 unnecessary or unjustified harm to plaintiff, to provide medical intervention and attention

26 to plaintiff, and a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and discipline OPD and mutual aid

27 officers so as to not cause harm to plaintiff and to prevent violations ofplaintifTs

28
SABEGHI ' '· UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION O F C IVIL RIGHTS 9

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document1 Filed11/29/12 Page10 of 10

constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

2 46. The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of care

3 defendants owed to plaintiff.

4

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them,

6 as follows:

7 1. For general and compensatory damages for violation of plaintiffs' federal and state

8 constitutional and statutory rights, pain and suffering, all to be detennined according to

9 proof;

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

11 as to the individual defendants;

12 3. For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section

13 52 to be determined according to proof;

14 4. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California Civil Code section

15 52(b) and section 52.1 (h), and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;

16 5. For costs of suit;

17 6. For pre- and post-judgment interest as pennitted by law;

18 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

19 DATED: November 27,2012

Respectfully submitted,

20

21

22

23

Ah:orney for Plaintiff

24

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

25

26

27

28 SABEGHJ ''· UU- COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 10

 
 Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page1 of 12

1 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM #112910 115-A Bartlett Street
2 San Francisco, CA 94110 415-285-8091; fax 415-285-8092
3 denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com

4 RACHEL LEDERMAN #130192 Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach, Attorneys
5 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110
6 415-282-9300; fax 415-285-5066 rlederman@2momslaw.com
7 BOBBIE STEIN #113239
8 503 Dolores Street, #201 San Francisco, CA 94110-1564
9 (415) 255-0301; fax (510) 601-5780 bstein8692@aol.com
10 Attorneys for the Plaintiff
11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 KAYVAN SABEGHI,

No. C12-06057-JSC

15

Plaintiff,

FIRST AMENDED

16

v.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS and OTHER

17 OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER FRANK WRONGS

18

UU, OFFICER MARCELL PATTERSON, SGT. PATRICK

19

GONZALEZ, individually and in their official capacities; CITY OF OAKLAND;

20 AND DOES 1 - 100,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page2 of 12

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2 1. This is a civil rights complaint arising from Oakland Police officers’ wrongful beating

3 and imprisonment of plaintiff Kayvan Sabeghi. These wrongs occurred in the wee hours

4 of November 3, 2011, during political demonstrations initiated by the Occupy Oakland

5 movement. Mr. Sabeghi had participated in the protest activity, gone out to dinner and

6 was making his way home when he encountered a police line blocking his path. When

7 Mr. Sabeghi, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, questioned and verbally criticized the

8 officers’ actions, defendant Officer Frank Uu and other Oakland Police officers brutally

9 beat and arrested him in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.

10 2. Officer Uu and other officers beat plaintiff so viciously that they lacerated his spleen,

11 causing severe pain and internal bleeding. Rather than summoning medical attention or

12 taking plaintiff to the hospital, the Oakland Police officers proceeded to detain him at

13 various locations near City Hall for some hours, and then transferred him to the Alameda

14 County Jail, in further unlawful punishment for his First Amendment expression. Police

15 officers, jailers and jail medical personnel mocked and ignored his pleas for help. Plaintiff

16 was not taken to a hospital until approximately 18 hours after the beating. He had been

17 bleeding internally the entire time and was in dire condition. As a result of defendants’

18 actions, plaintiff lost his spleen.

19 3. Defendants' actions deprived plaintiff of his right to freedom of speech and

20 association; his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; his right to

21 equal protection of the laws and to due process of law; and his right to be free from the

22 use of excessive and/or arbitrary force; his right to be free from unreasonable, summary

23 punishment; and his right to personal liberty and freedom of movement, all guaranteed by

24 the United States and California Constitutions, as well as additional state law claims

25 related to the police misconduct complained of.

26

27

28

2

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page3 of 12

1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 4. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution. This

3 Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

4 1343. It has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5 5. The individual defendants are all public officials or other employees or agents of the

6 City of Oakland. Each of the defendants resides within this District and/or performs

7 official duties within the State of California. This Court, accordingly, has personal

8 jurisdiction over each of the defendants.

9 6. Plaintiff has filed an administrative claim with the City of Oakland in compliance

10 with California Government Code sections 910 et seq. The claim has been denied

11 expressly or by operation of law.

12 7. Venue properly lies within this District under 28 U.S.C. § l391(b). The named

13 defendants perform their official duties in this District, and the events and omissions

14 giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

15

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

16 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2, this action may properly be assigned to the San

17 Francisco or Oakland divisions of this Court.

18

IV. THE PARTIES

19

Plaintiff

20 9. Plaintiff KAYVAN SABEGHI is an adult citizen of the United States, a United

21 States Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and a resident of Oakland, California.

22

Defendants

23 10. Defendants OFFICERS FRANK UU and MARCELL PATTERSON, were, at all

24 times relevant herein, members of the Oakland Police Department who participated in the

25 beating and unlawful detention of the plaintiff and the failure to summon medical care for

26 him.

27 11. Defendant SGT. PATRICK GONZALEZ participated in the supervision and

28 execution of the police conduct complained of.

3

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page4 of 12
1 12. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND ("the City") is a municipal corporation, duly 2 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Califomia. 3 13. All of the above individual defendants are sued in their individual and official 4 capacities. 5 14. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein 6 as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious 7 names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities 8 when ascertained. The Doe defendants include other individuals who participated in the 9 conduct complained of herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege 10 that each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable for the incident, injuries 11 and damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said defendants proximately caused 12 said incidents, injuries and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, 13 negligent supervision, management or control, violation of constitutional and legal rights, 14 or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, 15 whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control or 16 upon any other act or omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert 17 further charging allegations when such facts are ascertained. 18 15. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, acted within the 19 course and scope of their employment. 20 16. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, 21 acted under color of authority and/or under color of law. 22 17. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, 23 acted as the agent, servant, employee and/or in concert with each of said other defendants. 24 25 26 27 28
4

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page5 of 12

1

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

2 18. On November 2, 2011, thousands of people participated in political protest activities

3 in the City of Oakland in support of economic justice and in response to brutality by the

4 Oakland Police Department against the Occupy Oakland movement. Throughout the day

5 on November 2, thousands of people peacefully demonstrated, marched, danced,

6 picketed, and shut down the Port of Oakland, all without interference from the police.

7 Late that night, however, a large number of Oakland Police and assisting agencies’ 8 officers converged on the area around 16th and Telegraph, where some activists had

9 occupied an empty building that had formerly housed a service agency for the homeless.

10 19. Plaintiff had participated in the demonstration earlier that day, but then went out to 11 dinner with friends. After stopping at the newstand at 14th and Broadway, plaintiff was 12 starting to walk up Broadway to head for his home near 27th Street when his path was

13 blocked by a line of police officers. Plaintiff was alone, and the street at that location was

14 nearly empty, except for the line of officers.

15 20. Plaintiff asked to be allowed to pass, but the officers refused. Plaintiff was upset by

16 this arbitrariness and began verbally arguing with the officers and criticizing the police.

17 The police line began to move slowly forward, south on Broadway, and two DOE officers

18 jabbed plaintiff repeatedly with wooden clubs. Plaintiff retreated backward at a pace with

19 the police. At no time did plaintiff present a physical threat to the police.

20 21. Suddenly, defendant Uu came through the police line and confronted plaintiff,

21 cursing at him, and then struck him repeatedly with a club, driving him towards the west

22 sidewalk in front of the police line. Although plaintiff did not resist or fight back and was

23 not physically aggressive in any way, Uu continued to beat him and Uu, Patterson, and

24 other officers tackled him at or near the curb with unnecessary and excessive force, piling

25 on top of him and violently twisting his arms. Plaintiff suffered a lacerated spleen, as

26 well as cuts and bruises. There was no justification for the use of force on plaintiff.

27 Defendant Sgt. Gonzalez and other superiors failed to adequately supervise Ofcr. Uu and

28 other officers, failed to intervene, and approved and condoned the officers’ unlawful

5

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page6 of 12
1 conduct against plaintiff. 2 22. Defendants Uu, Patterson and other officers then lifted plaintiff up and put him in an 3 Oakland Police van, alone, where he was left for some period of time, then made to sit on 4 a curb with other handcuffed prisoners. During this time, plaintiff asked the officers to 5 wash the chemical agent from his face and to loosen his painfully tight handcuffs, but 6 they ignored him, and despite the severe force the officers had used on him, the police 7 failed to provide him with medical attention. 8 23. Eventually, defendants caused plaintiff to be put on a Sheriff’s bus and taken to the 9 Alameda County Jail, in violation of their California statutory obligation to cite and 10 release a misdemeanor arrestee such as plaintiff and in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise 11 of his First Amendment rights. Defendants failed to communicate plaintiffs’ need for 12 medical attention to the Alameda County personnel. 13 24. Defendants’ excessive force had caused a large laceration to plaintiff’s spleen and 14 internal bleeding. Once at the jail, as the bleeding worsened, plaintiff began to 15 experience severe pain and to vomit repeatedly. The Sheriff’s personnel and medical 16 personnel at the jail ignored plaintiff’s requests for help even though he was vomiting and 17 unable to stand. Rather than providing medical attention, the jail and medical personnel 18 ridiculed plaintiff, accusing him of being a heroin addict. Plaintiff was confined under 19 unreasonably unsanitary conditions, and moved from holding cell to holding cell, each 20 one filthy and stinking, as he continued to bleed internally. Even after a friend paid his 21 bail, he was not released for several more hours. Finally, at 6pm on November 3, 2011, 22 an ambulance was brought and he was taken to Alameda County Highland Hospital, 23 almost eighteen hours after plaintiff was beaten by defendants. 24 25. At the hospital, plaintiff received emergency medical treatment to stop the internal 25 bleeding, which involved closing off the blood flow to his spleen, so that plaintiff 26 permanently lost his spleen as a functional organ. He received a blood transfusion and 27 remained in Intensive Care in the hospital for five days. 28 26. The unreasonable delay in treatment exacerbated plaintiff’s medical condition and
6

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page7 of 12

1 caused him additional, needless pain and suffering.

2 27. Plaintiff suffered pain and disability for approximately eight months following the

3 police beating. He lost earnings as a result of his injuries, and was unable to participate in

4 many of his customary exercise and leisure activities. Plaintiff’s lack of a functioning

5 spleen causes him to have an increased risk of serious infections for the rest of his life.

6

VI. REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

7 28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional

8 and lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives,

9 practices, acts and omissions of authorized policy makers of defendant CITY OF

10 OAKLAND, including Chief Howard Jordan and other supervisory officials of the OPD

11 and the City of Oakland, who encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the

12 unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of herein. Said customs, policies and

13 practices include, but are not limited to the use of excessive force and pre-charging

14 imprisonment under inhumane conditions to disrupt and deter demonstrators and First

15 Amendment protected activity; the failure to maintain adequate policies, and to

16 adequately train, supervise and control OPD officers concerning the policing of

17 demonstrations and other expressive activities with respect to crowd control, and with

18 respect to the constitutional and statutory limitations on use of force, and with respect to

19 reasonable provision of medical attention to detainees who have been subjected to police

20 force or otherwise injured, and the requirements for citation and release of misdemeanor

21 arrestees.

22 29. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein,

23 plaintiff has been denied his constitutional, statutory and legal rights as stated below, and

24 has suffered general and special damages, including but not limited to, physical injuries

25 and bodily harm, pain, fear, mental and emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,

26 discomfort, anxiety and other damages in an amount according to proof.

27 30. Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done with

28 conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for plaintiff’s rights.

7

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page8 of 12

1

2

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

3

ONE - VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

4 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

5 complaint.

6 32. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiff’s rights to be free from

7 unreasonable seizures and unnecessary, excessive and/or arbitrary force, imprisonment

8 without reasonable or probable cause, unreasonable pre-charging punishment, and

9 unreasonable failure to provide medical care, under the Fourth Amendment to the United

10 States Constitution.

11

TWO - VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

12 33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

13 complaint.

14 34. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiff’s rights to freedom of speech

15 and association, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution .

16 THREE - VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

17 35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

18 complaint.

19 36. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiff’s right to not be deprived of

20 liberty without due process of law, and to equal protection of the laws, and to personal

21 liberty and freedom of movement, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

22 Constitution.

23

FOUR - ASSAULT AND BATTERY

24 37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

25 complaint.

26 38. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted assault and battery.

27

28

8

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page9 of 12

1

FIVE - FALSE IMPRISONMENT

2 39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

3 complaint.

4 40. Defendants act of intentionally imprisoning plaintiff in the Alameda County Jail,

5 rather than citing and releasing plaintiff, in violation of Penal Code section 853.6,

6 constituted false imprisonment.

7

SIX - VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51.7

8 41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

9 complaint.

10 42. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiff’s right to be free from

11 violence and intimidation by threat of violence because of his actual or perceived race,

12 color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation and/or viewpoint, in violation

13 of California Civil Code section 51.7.

14

SEVEN - VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1

15 43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

16 complaint.

17 44. Defendants' above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted

18 interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiff’s peaceable exercise and

19 enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the

20 State of California, in violation of California Civil Code section 52.1.

21

EIGHT - NEGLIGENCE

22 45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

23 complaint.

24 46. Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiff to ensure that defendants did not cause

25 unnecessary or unjustified harm to plaintiff, to provide medical intervention and attention

26 to plaintiff, and a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and discipline OPD and mutual aid

27 officers so as to not cause harm to plaintiff and to prevent violations of plaintiff’s

28 constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

9

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page10 of 12

1 47. The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of care

2 defendants owed to plaintiff.

3

4

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them,

6 as follows:

7 1. For general and compensatory damages for violation of plaintiffs' federal and state

8 constitutional and statutory rights, pain and suffering, all to be determined according to

9 proof;

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

11 as to the individual defendants;

12 3. For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section

13 52 to be determined according to proof;

14 4. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California Civil Code section

15 52(b) and section 52.1(h), and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;

16 5. For costs of suit;

17 6. For pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

18 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

19

20 DATED: January 7, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

21

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

BOBBIE STEIN

22

RACHEL LEDERMAN

23

/S/

By: RACHEL LEDERMAN

24

Attorney for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

10

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page11 of 12

1

2

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

3

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

4 Dated: January 7, 2013 5 6

/S/ By: RACHEL LEDERMAN Attorney for Plaintiffs

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

Case3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document3 Filed01/07/13 Page12 of 12

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I, Rachel Lederman, declare:

3

I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the City and County of San

4 Francisco. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within action. My business

5 address is 558 Capp Street, San Francisco, CA 94110. On the date specified below, I

6 served the:

7

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,

8

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION

9 on those interested parties not yet registered for ECF by email, and by causing a true copy

10 thereof to be deposited in the United States mail at San Francisco, CA, postage fully

11 prepaid:

12

William E. Simmons

Office of the City Attorney

13

1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

14

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

15

Executed this January 7, 2013, at San Francisco, California.

16

17

18 /s/
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document 33 Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 3

1 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM #112910 115-A Bartlett Street
2 San Francisco, CA 94110 415-285-8091; fax 415-285-8092
3 denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com

4 RACHEL LEDERMAN #130192 Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach, Attorneys
5 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110
6 415-282-9300; fax 415-285-5066 rlederman@2momslaw.com
7 BOBBIE STEIN #113239
8 503 Dolores Street, #201 San Francisco, CA 94110-1564
9 (415) 255-0301; fax (510) 601-5780 bstein8692@aol.com
10 Attorneys for the Plaintiff
11 BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney, SBN 069722
12 RANDOLPH W. HALL, Chief Assistant City Attorney., SBN 080142 JAMES HODGKINS, Supervising Trial Attorney, SBN 142561
13 One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612
14 Telephone: (510) 238-6135, Fax: (510) 238-6500

15 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.
16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 KAYVAN SABEGHI,

No. C12-06057-JSC (LB)

20

Plaintiff,

21

v.

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

22 OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER FRANK 23 UU, ET AL.,

24

Defendants.

25 Whereas, Plaintiff filed a civil rights lawsuit on November 29, 2012, against the
26 City of Oakland and individual Oakland Police Defendants seeking monetary damages
27 arising from police actions on November 2-3, 2011;
28

SABEGHI V. UU, C12-06057-JSC STIP ENTRY FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

Case 3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document 33 Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 3

1

Whereas, the parties participated in two settlement conferences before Magistrate

2 Judge Laurel Beeler;

3

WHEREAS, the parties have taken into account the uncertainty, risks, time and

4 expense inherent in litigation, and thus have agreed to resolve this matter upon the terms,

5 and subject to the conditions set forth in this Stipulation;

6

WHEREAS, the undersigned counsel have authority on behalf of their respective

7 clients to enter into this Stipulation and to fully resolve this matter on the terms herein;

8

WHEREAS, in consideration of the Release signed by Plaintiff, Defendant City of

9 Oakland has paid the amount of $645,000 to Plaintiff and his attorneys in complete

10 settlement of Plaintiff’s claims including attorney’s fees and costs;

11

THEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached

12 Final Order of Dismissal; and that the Case Management Conference, currently scheduled

13 for February 6, 2014, be vacated.

14 Dated: January 30, 2014

/s/

15

Rachel Lederman

16

Attorney for Plaintiff

17

/s/

18

James Hodgkins

19

Attorney for Defendants

20

21

22

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

23

I am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file

24 this stipulated request. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that

25 Mr. Hodgkins has concurred in this filing.

26 Dated: January 30, 2014
27

/S/ Rachel Lederman

28

SABEGHI V. UU, C12-06057-JSC STIP ENTRY FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

Case 3:12-cv-06057-JSC Document 33 Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 KAYVAN SABEGHI,

No. C12-06057-JSC

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

7

OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER FRANK UU, ET AL.,

8

Defendants.

9

10

All parties have stipulated to settlement in the above entitled case. The Stipulation

11 for Entry of Final Order of Dismissal dated January 30, 2014, has been filed with this

12 Court. Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

13 the action is DISMISSED.

14 Dated:
15
16

_________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SABEGHI V. UU, C12-06057-JSC FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 
 Case: 3:12-cv-6057 As of: 10/27/2017 06:40 AM PDT 1 of 5
ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSENT,PROTO,REFSET−LB
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12−cv−06057−JSC

Sabeghi v. Uu et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Date Terminated: 01/30/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kayvan Sabeghi

represented by Bobbie Fay Stein 503 Dolores Street, #201 San Francisco, CA 94110−1564 415−255−0301 Fax: 510−601−5780 Email: bstein8692@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Cunningham Law Office of Dennis Cunningham 115 A Bartlett Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415−285−8091 Fax: 415−285−8092 Email: denniscunningham@juno.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Lederman Law Offices of Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 282 9300 Fax: (415) 285−5066 Email: rachel@beachledermanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Frank Uu Oakland Police Officer
Defendant Police Officer Marcell Patterson

represented by William Edmond Simmons Simmons Mediation 1300 Clay St Ste 600 Oakland, CA 94612−1427 (925) 765−2120 Fax: (925) 765−2120 Email: bill@simmonsadr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:12-cv-6057 As of: 10/27/2017 06:40 AM PDT 2 of 5

Defendant Sgt. Patrick Gonzalez
Defendant City of Oakland

represented by William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/29/2012
11/29/2012
01/07/2013 01/07/2013 02/06/2013 02/26/2013 02/26/2013 02/26/2013
03/05/2013
03/05/2013 03/06/2013
03/20/2013 03/26/2013 03/29/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against City of Oakland, Patrick Gonzalez, Marcell Patterson, Frank Uu ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 34611080983.). Filed byKayvan Sabeghi. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(gaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2012) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 3/21/2013. Case Management Conference set for 3/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/29/12. (gaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2012) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byKayvan Sabeghi. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/7/2013) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
4 NOTICE by Kayvan Sabeghi of Pendency of Other Action (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/7/2013) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
5 Answer to Amended Complaint Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint byCity of Oakland. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 2/6/2013) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
6 Letter to plaintiff and defendant re: consent. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2013) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Kayvan Sabeghi.. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 2/26/2013) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
8 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by City of Oakland, Patrick Gonzalez, Marcell Patterson, Frank Uu.. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 2/26/2013) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
9 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options ADR Cerfication By Parties And Counsel (Simmons, William) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
10 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
11 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 3/26/13 at 11:00 a.m. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
12 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Kayvan Sabeghi. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 3/20/2013) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by HAH on 3/26/13. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
13 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/28/2013 before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (Date Filed: 3/29/2013). Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/12/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 9/19/2013 01:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (FTR 1:41−1:43) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/29/2013) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-6057 As of: 10/27/2017 06:40 AM PDT 3 of 5

03/29/2013 03/29/2013 03/29/2013 03/29/2013 04/01/2013 06/26/2013 07/11/2013
07/24/2013 07/25/2013
07/31/2013
08/12/2013

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2013) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
14 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/29/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2013) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
Set/Reset Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 5/29/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2013) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
Set/Reset Hearing: Jury Selection set for 6/16/2014 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Jury Trial set for 6/16/2014 to 6/19/2014 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (Entered: 03/29/2013)
15 NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Settlement Conference set for 6/26/2013 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/1/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2013) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
16 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 6/26/2013). Further Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 7/23/2013 at 4:00 P.M. Counsel to phone in to chambers with all parties on the line. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/26/2013) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
17 CLERKS NOTICE: The call currently set for attorneys only (for Plaintiffs: Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Lederman, and Ms. Stein) and for Defendants (Mr. Hall and Mr. Simmons) on July 23, 2013 is reset from 4:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. due to a scheduling conflict. As described in the minute entry at ECF No. 16, parties shall provide a call−in number or call in to chambers on one line. Plaintiffs will confer with Mr. Hall and Mr. Simmons before the conference call to address the issues and should update the court by email by July 22, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. Further Telephonic Settlement Conference reset to 7/23/2013 at 3:00 P.M. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2013) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
18 CLERKS NOTICE VACATING TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFRENCE on July 23, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel will contact the courtroom deputy, Lashanda Scott to arrange a new date. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2013) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
19 CLERKS NOTICE: Telephone Settlement conference reset at parties' request to August 1, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. Previous order applies. Parties to submit update by 4 pm the day before by email. Parties to call in to chambers on one line. Parties to provide the courtroom deputy, Lashanda Scott with an attendance list of participants on the call by 8/1/2013 at 2:00 p.m. If the parties have not accomplished what they need to, they may adjust this date by stipulation, but the court's view is that a date is needed on the calendar as a place holder so that the issue remains front and center. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2013) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
20 CLERKS NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE on August 1, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 8/12/2013 at 3:30 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Parties to meet and confer. Parties to submit update by 4 pm on August 9, 2013 by email to the court's orders box: lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. Parties to call in to chambers on one line. Parties to provide the courtroom deputy, Lashanda Scott with an attendance list of participants. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2013) Modified on 7/31/2013 (ls, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/2013)
21 CLERKS NOTICE RESETTING Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 8/19/2013 at 3:30 P.M. Counsel to dial−in to chambers with all the parties on one line. Counsel to provide the court with a status update by 8/16/2013− to be sent to the order's box at: lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013) (Entered: 08/12/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-6057 As of: 10/27/2017 06:40 AM PDT 4 of 5

08/21/2013
08/29/2013 08/30/2013 09/04/2013

22 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING Settlement Conference set for 10/21/2013 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Updated Settlement Conference Statements due seven days prior to the conference. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
23 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order filed by City of Oakland, Patrick Gonzalez, Marcell Patterson, Frank Uu. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 8/29/2013) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
24 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 23 Stipulated Protective Order (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2013) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
CLERKS NOTICE continuing case management conference. TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: Please take notice that the case management conference scheduled for September 19, 2013 is continued to November 7, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. An updated joint case management conference statement shall be filed seven days prior to the conference.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

10/11/2013 10/16/2013 10/21/2013 10/22/2013

(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2013) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
25 CLERKS NOTICE RESETTING THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HEARING TIME ONLY: Settlement Conference reset for 10/21/2013 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2013) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
26 CLERKS NOTICE RESETTING THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TIME ONLY: Due to a scheduling conflict with the court, the Settlement Conference is set to 10/21/2013 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2013) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
27 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held. Case settled subject to contingency of city council approval. (Date Filed: 10/21/2013) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/21/2013) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
28 CLERKS NOTICE continuing case management conference. TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: Please take notice that the case management conference scheduled for November 7, 2013 is continued to December 19, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. An updated joint case management conference statement shall be filed seven days prior to the conference.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

12/06/2013

(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2013) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
29 CLERKS NOTICE continuing case management conference. TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:Please take notice that the case management conference scheduled for December 19, 2013 is continued to January 23, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. An updated joint case management conference statement shall be filed seven days prior to the conference.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

01/16/2014

(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2013) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
30 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Continuing CMC filed by Kayvan Sabeghi. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-6057 As of: 10/27/2017 06:40 AM PDT 5 of 5

01/17/2014 01/17/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014

31 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 30 Stipulation Continuing CMC (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2014) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing: Further Case Management Conference reset for 2/6/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2014) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL filed by Kayvan Sabeghi. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/30/2014) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
33 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 32 Stipulation for Dismissal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2014) (Entered: 01/30/2014)