Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 1 of 15

1 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849 2 2001 P Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814 3 Telephone: 916/443-6911
Facsimile: 916/447-8336 4 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

—o0o—

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 —o0o—
10

11 LISA SUON, JEFFREY PAY, and ANDY MEAN, on behalf of themselves and all those
12 similarly situated,

CASE NO: C 07-01770 EMC CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13

Plaintiffs,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14 vs.

15 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; ALAMEDA

COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT;

16 ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION

OFFICER DONALD H. BLEVINS, in his 17 individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA

COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION 18 OFFICER SHEILA L. FOSTER, in her individual

and official capacity; ALAMEDA COUNTY 19 ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER

20

RICHARD A. MUENCH, in his individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA COUNTY

21 DEPUTY CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES WILLIAM E. FENTON, in his individual and

22 official capacity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 150,

23

Defendants.

24 PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE: 25

INTRODUCTION

26

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and punitive damages against

27 the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, the ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

28 ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER DONALD H. BLEVINS, in his individual

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 2 of 15

1 and official capacity, SACRAMENTO COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER

2 SHEILA L. FOSTER, in her individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT

3 CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER RICHARD A. MUENCH, in his individual and official capacity;

4 ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES WILLIAM E. FENTON,

5 in his individual and official capacity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 150 (persons sued herein by their

6 fictitious names) for violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights resulting from application of the

7 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S and the ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT’s

8 policies, practices, and customs concerning the use of strip searches and visual body cavity searches

9 in the Alameda County Juvenile Hall and the manner in which such strip searches and visual body

10 cavity searches are performed. Plaintiffs seek an order declaring illegal defendants’ policy of

11 subjecting juvenile detainees in their custody to strip and visual body cavity searches before such

12 detainees have appeared at a detention hearing and without having any reasonable suspicion that the

13 searches will be productive of contraband. Plaintiffs also seek an order declaring illegal defendants’

14 policy of subjecting juvenile detainees in their custody to strip and visual body cavity searches in

15 groups following family visits and other occasions when the juveniles return to their units.

16

Defendants’ strip and visual body cavity search policies, practices, and customs violated and

17 violate the rights of plaintiffs, and each of those persons similarly situated, secured by the Fourth and

18 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and entitle plaintiffs, and all of those similarly

19 situated, to recover damages under the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983).

20

JURISDICTION

21

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and

22 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C.

23 §§ 1331 and 1341(3) and (4) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.

24

2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs.

25

PARTIES

26

3. Plaintiff LISA SUON, like all those similarly situated, is, and at all material times

27 herein, was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of California who was arrested 28 while a juvenile and who was subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity searches at Alameda

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 3 of 15

1 County’s Juvenile Hall, prior to appearing at a detention hearing and/or without the defendants first

2 having a reasonable suspicion that the search would be productive of contraband or weapons.

3 Plaintiff SUON, like all those similarly situated, was subjected to group strip searches where she

4 could see other juveniles being strip searched and, in turn, could be seen by them as she was strip

5 searched (group strip search) following return from family or other visits and following return to the

6 unit on other occasions before and after detention hearing.

7

4. Plaintiff JEFFREY PAY, like all those similarly situated, is, and at all material times

8 herein, was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of California who was arrested

9 while a juvenile and who was subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity searches, in groups, at the

10 Alameda County Juvenile Hall.

11

5. Plaintiff ANDY MEAN, like all those similarly situated, is, and at all material times

12 herein, was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of California who was arrested

13 while a juvenile and who was subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity searches, in groups, at

14 Alameda County Juvenile Hall.

15

6. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER DONALD H.

16 BLEVINS, is, and at all material times referred to herein, was responsible for administering Alameda

17 County’s juvenile detention facilities and for making, overseeing, and implementing the policies,

18 practices, and customs challenged herein relating to the operation of the Alameda County Juvenile

19 Hall. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

20

7. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER

21 SHEILA L. FOSTER is, and at all material times referred to herein, was responsible for assisting in

22 the administration of Alameda County’s juvenile detention facilities and for assisting in the making,

23 overseeing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged herein relating to the

24 operation of the Alameda County Juvenile Hall. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.

25

8. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER

26 RICHARD A. MUENCH is, and at all material times referred to herein, was responsible for assisting

27 in the administration of Alameda County’s juvenile detention facilities and for assisting in the 28 making, overseeing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged herein relating

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 4 of 15

1 to the operation of the Alameda County Juvenile Hall. He is sued in his individual and official

2 capacities.

3

9. ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES WILLIAM

4 E. FENTON is, and at all material times referred to herein, was responsible for the day-to-day

5 operation and management of the Alameda County’s Juvenile detention facility and for assisting in

6 the administration of Alameda County’s juvenile detention facilities and for assisting in the making,

7 overseeing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged herein relating to the

8 operation of the Alameda County Juvenile Hall. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

9

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon alleges that defendants sued herein

10 by their fictitious names (DOES 1 through 150) are County of Alameda Probation Officers and/or

11 other persons employed by the defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA who, as part of their duties at

12 the Alameda County Juvenile Hall, subjected plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, to pre-

13 detention hearing strip and/or visual body cavitysearches without first having a reasonable suspicion

14 that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons; and subjected plaintiffs, and all

15 those similarly situated, to strip and/or visual body cavity searches in groups. Plaintiffs are not

16 currently aware of the true names and identities of those sued herein as DOES 1 through 150, but

17 will amend this Complaint to include such persons’ real names once said names are made available

18 to them.

19

11. At all material times mentioned herein, each of the defendants was acting under the

20 color of law, to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages

21 of the state of California, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and/or the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S

22 PROBATION DEPARTMENT.

23

12. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA is, and at all material times referred to herein,

24 was, a division of the state of California, that maintained or permitted an official policy or custom

25 or practice causing or permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs complained of herein, which 26 wrongs damaged plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, as herein alleged. Plaintiffs’ allegations

27 against the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA are based on acts and omissions of the CHIEF PROBATION 28 OFFICER, the ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS, and the DEPUTY CHIEF OF

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 5 of 15

1 JUVENILE FACILITIES, and their officers, and on acts and omissions of persons who are

2 employees of the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and on the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’s breach of its

3 duty to protect plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, from the wrongful conduct of said persons

4 and employees.

5

13. Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PROBATION DEPARTMENT, ALAMEDA

6 COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER DONALD H. BLEVINS, in his individual and official

7 capacity, ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER SHEILA L.

8 FOSTER, in her individual and official capacity, and ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF

9 PROBATION OFFICER RICHARD A. MUENCH, in his individual and official capacity also

10 maintained or permitted an official policy or custom or practice causing or permitting the occurrence

11 of the types of wrongs complained of herein, which wrongs damaged plaintiffs, and all those

12 similarly situated, as herein alleged.

13

14. Class action plaintiffs are those similarly situated juveniles who were subjected by

14 defendants to pre-detention hearing strip and/or visual body cavity searches without defendants

15 having a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons and

16 who have not yet reached adulthood or who have turned 18 within two (2) years of the filing of this

17 complaint. Class action plaintiffs are also those similarly situated juveniles who were subjected by

18 defendants to strip and/or visual body cavity searches, in groups, in places where they could view

19 the naked bodies of other juveniles being strip searched simultaneously and/or be viewed by other

20 juveniles being strip searched simultaneously, in groups who have not yet reached adulthood or who

21 have turned 18 within two (2) years of the filing of this Complaint.

22

FACTS

23

15. In or about the year 2003, plaintiff LISA SUON, then 14 years of age, was arrested

24 for a misdemeanor offense, transported to Alameda County Juvenile Hall on Fairmont Drive, San

25 Leandro, in the County of Alameda, California, and there, prior to a detention hearing, was subjected 26 to a visual body cavity search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

27 States Constitution. 28 \\\

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 6 of 15

1

16. During Plaintiff SUON’s confinement in the Alameda County Juvenile Hall,

2 whenever she returned to the unit following a visit, she was subjected to a strip and/or visual body

3 cavity search in groups of juveniles who could see each other as they were being strip searched and

4 plaintiff SUON did, in fact, view the naked bodies of other juvenile detainees as they were required

5 to expose their body cavities for visual inspection by defendants.

6

17. Plaintiff JEFFREY PAY (Date of Birth: December 30, 1987) was arrested in or about

7 2004, and again in 2005, for misdemeanor offenses, transported to the Alameda County Juvenile

8 Hall on Fairmont Drive, San Leandro, in the County of Alameda, California, and there, prior to a

9 detention hearing, was subjected to a visual body cavity search in violation of the Fourth and

10 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He was also repeatedly subjected to

11 group strip searches and/or visual body cavity searches whenever he returned to the unit in which

12 he was housed following a visit. During those group strip searches, he could and did visualize the

13 naked bodies of other juveniles being strip searched simultaneously and was, at the same time,

14 viewed by other juveniles as he was being strip searched and forced to lift his genitalia for inspection

15 and expose his rectum for visual inspection by defendants.

16

18. Plaintiff ANDY MEAN (Date of Birth: April 13, 1988) was arrested in or about 2004,

17 for a misdemeanor offense, transported to the Alameda CountyJuvenile Hall on Fairmont Drive, San

18 Leandro, in the County of Alameda, California, and there, prior to a detention hearing, was subjected

19 to a visual body cavity search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

20 States Constitution. Plaintiff MEAN was also subjected to repetitive group strip search and/or visual

21 body cavitysearches during his confinement in Alameda County Juvenile Hall whenever he returned

22 to the unit following a visit. During these group strip and/or visual body cavity searches, plaintiff

23 MEAN could see other juveniles being strip searched simultaneously and exposing their genitalia

24 for inspection by defendants and, in turn, could be visualized by other juveniles as he exposed his

25 naked body for inspection by defendants.

26

19. Plaintiff SUON is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants had

27 no reasonable suspicion that a strip or visual body cavity search of plaintiff would result in the 28 discovery of contraband or weapons.

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 7 of 15

1

20. Plaintiff PAY is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants had

2 no reasonable suspicion that a strip or visual body cavity search of plaintiff would result in the

3 discovery of contraband or weapons.

4

21. Plaintiff MEAN is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants had

5 no reasonable suspicion that a strip or visual body cavity search of plaintiff would result in the

6 discovery of contraband or weapons.

7

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there was no legal justification for requiring

8 plaintiffs to submit to strip searches in groups where they could see and be seen by persons not

9 officially participating in the strip searches, i.e. other juvenile detainees.

10

23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that defendants have the

11 ability to identify all such similarly situated plaintiffs, specifically those who are still juveniles or

12 who were juveniles within two (2) years of the filing of this Complaint and, who, while in

13 defendants’ custody at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall, were subjected to strip searches and/or

14 visual body cavity searches prior to appearing at a detention hearing without defendants first having

15 a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons; and that

16 defendants have the ability to identify all such similarly situated plaintiffs, specifically those who

17 are still juveniles or who were juveniles within two (2) years of the filing of this Complaint, who,

18 while in defendants’ custody at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall were subjected to strip searches

19 and/or visual body cavity searches in groups.

20

24. Defendants CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER DONALD H. BLEVINS, ASSISTANT

21 CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS SHEILA L. FOSTER and RICHARD A. MUENCH, DEPUTY

22 CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES, WILLIAM E. FENTON, and Defendants DOES 1 through 10

23 are jointly and severally personally responsible for the promulgation and continuation of the strip

24 search policy, practice, and custom pursuant to which plaintiffs herein and the persons in the class

25 plaintiffs purport to represent were subjected to the strip searches and group strip searches 26 complained of herein.

27

25. As a result of being subjected to the searches complained of herein, plaintiffs, and all

28 those similarly situated, have suffered physical, mental, and emotional distress, invasion of privacy,

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 8 of 15

1 and violation of due process of law and federal statutory and constitutional rights, and are entitled

2 to recover damages according to proof, including exemplary damages.

3

CLASS CLAIMS

4

26. The strip and visual body cavity searches to which plaintiffs, and all those similarly

5 situated, were subjected were performed pursuant to policies, practices, and customs of defendants,

6 and each of them. The searches complained of herein were performed without regard to the nature

7 of the alleged offense for which the plaintiffs, and each of those similarly situated, had been arrested,

8 without regard to whether or not plaintiffs, and each of those similarly situated, were eligible for

9 release under Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 628 et seq. Furthermore, the searches complained of

10 herein were performed without defendants having a reasonable belief that plaintiffs, or those

11 similarly situated, so searched, possessed weapons or contraband, or that there existed facts

12 supporting a reasonable belief that the searches would produce contraband.

13

27. The group strip and/or visual body cavity searches to which plaintiffs, and all those

14 similarly situated, were subjected were performed pursuant to policies, practices, and customs of

15 defendants, and each of them. The group strip searches complained of herein were performed

16 without any necessity or justification and in total disregard of the “reasonable search” requirements

17 of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

18

28. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly

19 situated pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20

29. The class is defined to include all persons who are currently juveniles or who reached

21 the age of majority within two (2) years of filing of this Complaint, and who were arrested and

22 subjected to pre-detention hearing strip and/or visual body cavity searches at the Alameda County

23 Juvenile Hall without defendants having a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be

24 productive of contraband or weapons. The class includes all persons for whom there was reasonable

25 suspicion to believe that they were concealing contraband or weapons but who were strip searched 26 in an unreasonable manner and place, that is in groups, where they could see other juveniles who

27 were strip searched simultaneously. 28 \\\

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 9 of 15

1

30. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the members of the

2 class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Plaintiffs do not know the exact

3 number of class members. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that there are

4 more than 20 persons per day who are arrested by defendants and/or in the custody of defendants and

5 subjected to the searches complained of herein as a result of defendants’ policy, practice, and custom

6 relating to said searches. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that there are

7 thousands of persons in the proposed class.

8

31. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiffs are

9 informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that there are many questions of fact common to the

10 class including, but not limited to: (1) whether defendants routinely subject all juveniles arrested to

11 visual body cavity searches prior to appearance at a detention hearing; (2) whether persons are

12 subjected to visual body cavity searches prior to detention hearings without there being any

13 reasonable suspicion, based on specific or articulable facts, to believe that any particular arrestee has

14 concealed drugs, weapons, and/or contraband in bodily cavities which could be detected by means

15 of a visual body cavity search; (3) whether the visual body cavity searches are conducted in areas of

16 privacy so that the searches cannot be observed by persons not participating in the searches, or

17 whether the visual body cavitysearches are conducted in groups and/or in open areas where they may

18 be observed by persons not officially participating in the searches; and, (4) whether the visual body

19 cavity searches are reasonably related to defendants’ penological interest to maintain the security of

20 the juvenile detention facility and whether or not there are less intrusive methods for protecting any

21 such interest.

22

32. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiffs are

23 informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that there are many questions of law common to the

24 class including, but are not limited to: (1) whether defendants may perform visual body cavity

25 searches on juveniles prior to their detention hearing without reasonable suspicion, based on specific 26 or articulable facts, to believe any particular detainee has concealed drugs, weapons and/or

27 contraband which would likely be discovered by a visual body cavity search; (2) whether defendants 28 may perform visual body cavity searches on juveniles without first reasonably relating the use of the

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 10 of 15

1 visual body cavity search to defendants’ penological interest to maintain the security of the juvenile

2 detention facility and determining if there is a less intrusive method to protect that interest; (3)

3 whether visual body cavity searches may be conducted in areas where the search can be observed

4 by people not officially participating in the search without violating plaintiffs’ Federal constitutional

5 and statutory rights; and, (4) whether or not defendants’ strip search policy and procedure is in

6 accordance with the federal constitution.

7

33. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the claims of the

8 representative plaintiffs are typical of the class. Plaintiffs were subjected to strip and/or visual body

9 cavity searches, prior to their detention hearings, without reasonable suspicion that a strip or visual

10 body cavity search would produce drugs, weapons or contraband. Plaintiffs were subjected to strip

11 and visual body cavity searches in groups following return to their units after visits and could see

12 and be seen by other juveniles as they were subjected to strip searches. Representative plaintiffs

13 have the same interests and suffered the same type of injuries as all of the other class members.

14 Plaintiffs’ claims arose because of defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of subjecting arrestees

15 to strip and/or visual body cavity searches prior to detention hearings without having, and recording

16 in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons;

17 and of performing group strip searches following visits. Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon the same

18 legal theories as the claims of all of the other class members. Each class member suffered actual

19 damages as a result of being subjected to a strip or visual body cavity search and to being subjected

20 to a strip or visual body cavity search in a group. The actual damages suffered by representative

21 plaintiffs are similar in type and amount to the actual damages suffered by each class member.

22

34. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the representative

23 plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. Plaintiffs’ interests are consistent with

24 and not antagonistic to the interests of the class.

25

35. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions

26 of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent

27 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as a practical matter, 28 substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members of the class to protect their interest.

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 11 of 15

1

36. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), plaintiffs are

2 informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that defendants have acted on grounds generally

3 applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate the final injunctive or declaratory relief with

4 respect to the class as a whole.

5

37. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), this class action

6 is superior to other available methods for the fair and equitable adjudication of the controversy

7 between the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the interests of

8 members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low, in that

9 most class members would be unable individually to prosecute any action at all. Plaintiffs are

10 informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the amounts at stake for individuals are so small

11 that separate suits would be impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege,

12 that most members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them. Plaintiffs are

13 informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one

14 forum because all of the claims arise in the same location; i.e., COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. It will

15 promote judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one forum, rather

16 than in multiple courts.

17

38. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all of the class members. Plaintiffs are

18 informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the identities of the class members may be

19 ascertained from records maintained by defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA

20 COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and defendants BLEVINS, FOSTER and MUENCH.

21 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that defendants’ records reflect the

22 identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of the persons who have been held in custody

23 in the Alameda County Juvenile Hall. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that

24 records maintained by defendants reflect who was subjected to a strip and/or visual body cavity

25 search, when the search occurred, where the search occurred, whether any reasonable suspicion for

26 the search existed, when persons searched appeared at detention hearings, and the charges on which

27 such persons were arrested. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that all of the 28 foregoing information is contained in defendants’ computer system and that the information

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 12 of 15

1 necessary to identify the class members, by last known addresses, and the dates and reasons for their

2 arrests and/or release from custody, is readily available from said computer system.

3

39. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), class members

4 must be furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual

5 notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. Plaintiffs are informed and

6 believe, and thereupon allege, that defendants’ computer records contain a last known address for

7 class members. Plaintiffs contemplate that individual notice will be given to class members at such

8 last known address by first class mail. Plaintiffs contemplate that the notice will inform class

9 members of the following:

10

i. The pendency of the class action and the issues common to the class;

11

ii. The nature of the action;

12

iii. Their right to “opt out” of the action within a given time, in which event they

13

will not be bound by a decision rendered in the class action;

14

iv. Their right, if they do not “opt out,” to be represented by their own counsel

15

and to enter an appearance in the case; otherwise they will be represented by

16

the named class plaintiff(s) and their counsel; and

17

v. Their right, if they do not “opt out,” to share in any recovery in favor of the

18

class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment on the common issues

19

adverse to the class.

20

COUNT ONE

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on behalf of Plaintiffs

21

and all persons similarly situated and against all Defendants and each of them)

22

40. Plaintiffs incorporate herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, to the extent

23 relevant, as if fully set forth.

24

41. Defendants’ policies, practices,and customs regarding the strip and visual bodycavity

25 searches complained of herein violated the rights of plaintiffs, and the rights of each of those

26 similarly situated, under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,

27 violated the rights of plaintiffs, and the rights of each of those similarly situated, to due process and 28 privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, and directly and proximately damaged plaintiffs, and each

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 13 of 15

1 of those similarly situated, as herein alleged, entitling plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, to

2 recover damages for said constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all those similarly

4 situated, pray for relief as hereunder appears.

5

COUNT TWO

6

(For Exemplary Damages on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated

and against all individually named defendants, and each of them)

7

8

42. Plaintiffs incorporate herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, to the extent

9 relevant, as if fully set forth.

10

43. Plaintiffs and all those similarlysituated were minors at the time defendants subjected

11 them to the humiliating, degrading, and unlawful strip searches complained of herein. Defendants

12 exploited on the young age of plaintiffs and all those similarly situated to coerce plaintiffs, and the

13 members of the class they represent, to comply with their unlawful demands. Defendants’ conduct

14 was oppressive, malicious, and done in complete disregard of the rights of plaintiffs and all those

15 similarly situated; and, therefore plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, are entitled to recover,

16 in addition to actual damages, damages to make an example of and to punish defendants, and each

17 of them.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all those similarly

20 situated, seek judgment as follows:

21

1. For declaratoryand injunctive relief declaring illegal and enjoining, preliminarily and

22 permanently, defendants’ policies, practices, and customs of subjecting pre-detention hearing

23 juvenile detainees to strip and visual body cavity searches without having a reasonable suspicion that

24 such searches would be productive of contraband or weapons.

25

2. For declaratory and injunctive relief declaring illegal and enjoining, preliminarily and

26 permanently, defendants’ policies, practices, and customs of subjecting juvenile detainees to strip

27 and/or visual body cavity searches in groups and/or in places where they can be seen by other 28 persons not officially participating in the search.

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 14 of 15

1

3. Certification of the action as a class action;

2

4. For compensatory, general, and special damages for each representative and for each

3 member of the class of plaintiffs, as against all defendants;

4

5. Exemplary damages as against each of the individual defendants in an amount

5 sufficient to deter and to make an example of those defendants;

6

6. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and,

7

7. The cost of this suit and such other relief as the court finds just and proper.

8 DATED: March 23, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

9

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

10

/s/ - “Mark E. Merin”

11

BY:

Mark E. Merin

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MJJ Document 1 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 15 of 15

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

A jury trial is hereby demanded.

3 DATED: March 23, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

4

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

5

/s/ - “Mark E. Merin”

6

BY:

Mark E. Merin

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LISA SUON, et al. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.

PAGE 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

USDC, Northern District, Case No. C 07-01770 EMC

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 10

1 Mark E. Merin, Esq., SBN 043849 Cathleen A. Williams, Esq. SBN 043849
2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6 GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305)

7 BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Profethssional Corporation

8

555 12 Street, Suite 1800 P. O. Box 12925

9

Oakland, CA 94604-2925 Telephone: (510) 834-4350

10

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897 Email: grockwell@bjg.com

11 Attorneys for Defendants

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14

15 LISA SUON, et al., 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., 19 Defendants. 20

) Case No.: C 07-01770 MMC ) ) ) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ) STATEMENT ) ) ) ) )

21 1. 22
23

Does the Court have subject matter jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs’ claim(s) and defendants’ counter-claim(s)? What is the basis of that jurisdiction? Are all the parties subject to the Court’s jurisdiction? Do any parties remain to be served?

24

25

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and

26 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28

27 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1341 (3) and (4). Plaintiffs contend that the Court has supplemental

28 jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper in the

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 1

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 10

1 Northern District as the acts complained of occurred in Alameda County and defendants are

2 within the district.
3 All named defendants have been served. Plaintiffs anticipate being able to identify
4 and serve any unnamed Doe defendants within 180 days after the exchange of Initial
5 6 Disclosures but additional individual employees of named defendants may be identified
7 during discovery of class issues and plaintiffs would then move to amend the complaint to

8 substitute those specific individuals for defendants now identified as Does.

9 10 2.
11

What are the factual and legal bases for plaintiffs’ claims and defendants’ defenses? Defendants counterclaims and defendants defenses to the counterclaims?

12 Plaintiff LISA SUON claims that in or about the year 2003, when she was fourteen
13 14 years of age, she was arrested for a misdemeanor offense and transferred to Alameda County
15 Juvenile Hall in San Leandro where, prior to a detention hearing, without there being

16 reasonable suspicion, she was subjected to a visual body cavity search. Subsequently, during

17 confinement, at Alameda County Juvenile Hall, she claims that whenever she returned to the
18 unit following a visit she was subjected to a visual body cavity search in groups of juveniles
19 who could see each other and be seen by each other as they were undergoing their strip
20
21 searches.

22

Plaintiff JEFFREY PAY claims that he was arrested in or about the year 2004 and

23 again in 2005, for misdemeanor offenses, transported to the Alameda County Juvenile Hall in

24 San Leandro and there, prior to a detention hearing, was subjected to visual body cavity
25 search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He
26 also claims that he was repeatedly subjected to group strip searches whenever he returned to
27
28 the unit in which he was housed following any visit. During those group strip searches he

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 2

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 10

1 could see other juveniles and they could see him undergoing strip searches.

2

Plaintiff ANDY MEAN was arrested in or about the year 2004 for a misdemeanor

3 offense, transported to the Alameda County Juvenile Hall in San Leandro, California, where
4 he was subjected to a visual body cavity search, prior to a detention hearing, in violation of
5

6 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff Mean claims that

7 he was also subjected to repetitive group visual body cavity search during his confinement in

8 Alameda County Juvenile Hall whenever he returned to the unit following a visit. During

9 those strip searches he could see and be seen by other juvenile who were also being strip
10 searched simultaneously.
11 Plaintiffs claim, for themselves and all others similarly situated, that the complained
12 13 of visual body cavity searches were conducted pursuant to and in a manner authorized by
14 policies, procedures, and/or customs and practices of defendants and that the searches

15 violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

16 and Penal Code § 4030 which prohibits pre-detention hearing strip searches of most juveniles
17 charged with misdemeanor offenses not involving violence, drugs or weapons and requires
18 that such searches be conducted in an area of privacy, and be pre-approved in writing by a
19 20 supervisor: Plaintiffs also allege that the conduct of which they complained violation the
21 Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 52 and § 52.1(b)), which provides for civil

22 penalties in cases where persons are coerced to give up their constitutional or statutory rights.

23 Plaintiffs contends that this case is appropriate for certification to proceed as a class action.
24 Defendants deny each and every of plaintiffs’ claim and contend that the matter is not
25 appropriate for class certification. Additionally, even assuming the plaintiffs’ claims are true,
26 27 defendants assert they are shielded from liability by the doctrines of qualified immunity and
28 various immunities set forth in the California Government, Penal and Civil Codes.

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 3

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 4 of 10

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

What are the factual and legal issues generally in dispute?
a) Whether or not plaintiffs were subjected to visual body cavity searches (strip searches);
b) Whether or not plaintiffs were subjected to visual body cavity searches in groups;
c) Whether or not plaintiffs were subjected to repetitive visual body cavity searches;
d) Whether or not there was reasonable suspicion to strip search plaintiffs; e) Whether or not at the time of the complained of alleged strip searches,
defendants had written strip search policies that complied with the governing federal and state legal authorities; f) Whether or not plaintiffs were strip searched pursuant to a policy; g) Whether or not the alleged searches of plaintiffs were typical of other searches conducted of persons admitted to defendants’ juvenile hall;. h) Whether the potential class of plaintiffs is sufficiently large to justify class certification; i) Whether defendants policies and procedures for strip searching juveniles and the strip searches of plaintiffs were consistent with the holding of Bell v. Wolfish (441 US 520, 1979) ; and, j) Whether plaintiffs suffered any compensable injury as a result of the strip searches at defendants’ facility.
What are the issues that can be narrowed by agreement or by motions? Are there dispositive or partially dispositive issues appropriate for decision on motion?

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 4

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 5 of 10

1

Whether or not defendants’ visual body cavity search policies, practices, and

2 customs, if any, were constitutional may be appropriate for resolution by motion. Similarly,
3 whether or not individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity may also be amenable
4 to resolutions by motion.
5

6 7 5. 8 9

Plaintiffs’ state law causes of action may also be capable or resolution by motion. What are the motions anticipated by the parties?
a) Plaintiffs:

10 Plaintiffs anticipate filing a motion for summary adjudication as to the
11 unconstitutionality of defendants’ visual body cavity search policies, practices, and customs
12
13 as well as to the lack of merit of defendants’ affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs anticipate filing

14 a motion to amend the complaint to include additional named class representative as such

15 individuals are identified; filing a motion to amend the complaint to substitute parties whose
16 names become known for defendants now identified by fictitious names. Plaintiffs also 17
anticipate filing a motion for class certification. 18

19

b) Defendants:

20

21

Defendants anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment/adjudication regarding

22 all of plaintiffs’ claims.

23 24 6.
25

What relief does plaintiff seek? What is the amount of damages sought by plaintiff’s claim(s)? How are the damages computed?

26

Plaintiffs seek an order declaring illegal defendants’ policy and practice of subjecting

27 juvenile detainees in their custody to visual body cavity searches before arraignment and 28 without them having any reasonable suspicion that the searches will be productive of

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 5

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 6 of 10

1 contraband. Plaintiffs further seek an order declaring illegal defendants’ policy of

2 conducting the complained of searches in areas which can be and are observed by persons not
3 participating in the searches.
4 Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the violation of those rights of plaintiffs, and of
5 6 all those they seek to represent, that are secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
7 to the United States Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek on their own behalf, and on

8 behalf of all those similarly situated, statutory damages under California Penal Code § 4030

9 (minimum of $1,000 per violation) and under California Civil Code § 52 and § 52.1(b)
10 (minimum of $4,000 per violation). Because the size of the class of persons covered by this
11 lawsuit is not yet known, plaintiffs are not prepared to provide a precise calculation of the
12 13 potential damages in this cases; however, recoveries in individual similar cases have
14 exceeded $100,000, exclusive of punitive damages, and recoveries in class actions in federal

15 courts have been in the tens of millions of dollars.

16 17 18 7. 19 20

Plaintiffs also request an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
What discovery does each party intend to pursue? Can discovery be limited in any manner? Are there any alternative methods available to obtain the necessary information? Should a discovery order and conference be entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)?

21

Plaintiffs intend to obtain the following discovery:

22 1. Documents used at the defendants’ juvenile hall in the last five (5) years that
23

cover the following areas: Booking/Intake procedures; pat, strip, visual, and 24

25

body cavity search procedures and protocols, and clothing logs.

26

2. The numbers and identities of juveniles booked at the Alameda County Juvenile

27

Hall between January 1, 2000, and the present, and a breakdown of those

28

numbers showing, by month, the number of persons booked on crimes involving

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 6

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 7 of 10

1

drugs, weapons, and violence, the crimes on which they were charged, the

2

breakdowns by classification (misdemeanor, infraction, welfare and institution

3 code violation, felony).
4 3. The names and arrest charges of the persons booked at the Alameda County
5

6

Juvenile Hall between January 1, 2000, and the present on charges not involving

7

drugs, weapons, or violence.

8

4. Depositions of the jail personnel involved in the booking, processing, and strip

9

searching of plaintiffs.

10 5. Depositions of Alameda County Juvenile Hall personnel and supervisors
11 involved in the intake, booking, processing, strip searching, and transportation
12

13

of plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.

14

6. Deposition of the policy-makers at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall facilities.

15

7. Depositions of persons most knowledgeable about the Alameda County Juvenile

16

Hall facility’s computer systems and data retrieval systems.

17 8. Depositions of group counselors/juvenile hall personnel who conducted strip

18
searches of pre-detention hearing detainees during the class period. 19

20

9. Site inspection.

21

10. Production and review of videotapes, if any, made at the juvenile hall during the

22

relevant period.

23

11. Production and review of training materials used to train juvenile hall personnel

24 in strip search policies and procedures.

25
Defendants intend to obtain the following discovery: 26

27

1. All documentation pertaining to the arrests which lead to plaintiffs’

28

incarceration.

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 7

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 8 of 10

1

2. All documentation of plaintiffs’ arrest and incarcerations prior and subsequent

2

to the arrests which they describe in the complaint in this action.

3 3. All records relating to plaintiffs’ education, work history, and treatment for
4 mental or emotional problems or substance abuse.
5

6

4. Depositions of plaintiffs and family members.

7

5. Depositions of any subsequently named proposed class

8

representatives/plaintiffs.

9

At this point the parties believe it is too early to determine if discovery can be limited

10 in any manner. A discovery order and conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) is not
11 necessary.
12

13 8. 14 15

Is this case suitable for reference to a binding arbitration, to a Special Master, or to a Magistrate Judge for trial. Is the case suitable for reference to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation?

16

The parties do not believe this case is appropriate for binding arbitration.

17 Neither party consents to this matter being referred to a Special Master or Magistrate
18 Judge for trial.
19

20

This case is not suitable for reference to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

21 9.
22
23
24

Will this case be tried by a jury? What is the anticipated length of trial? Is it possible to reduce the length of trial by stipulation, use of summaries or statements, or other expedited means of presenting evidence? Is it feasible and desirable to bifurcate issues for trial?

25

Both parties have requested that this case be tried by a jury. The length and evidence

26 of the trial is dependent upon whether or not plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class
27 certification is granted. Therefore, the parties request that these matters be re-visited
28

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 8

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 9 of 10

1 following a ruling on plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification.

2 3 Are there related cases pending before other Judges of this Court?

4 No.
5

6 11. If a class action, how and when will the class(es) be certified?

7

8

Plaintiffs anticipate bringing a motion for class certification within nine (9) months of

9 the Court’s Scheduling Order.

10 12.
11
12
13

What are the earliest reasonable dates for discovery cutoff, pretrial conference, and trial?

Discovery Cutoff (90 days before pretrial conf.):

August 1, 2008

14 Final Pretrial Conf. (90 days before trial):
15 Trial:
16

November 3, 2008 February 2, 2009

17 13. 18 19

What are the prospects for settlement? Does any party wish to have a settlement conference with another Judge or Magistrate Judge? How can settlement efforts be assisted?

20

A settlement conference or other alternative dispute resolution may be desirable but

21 that question should be deferred until after the parties have had an opportunity to exchange
22 initial disclosures and conduct a first round of discovery. The parties anticipate that they will
23

24 employ a private mediator (perhaps the Honorable Raul Ramirez (U.S. District Court Judge,

25 ret.) to assist them in resolving this matter as he has experience in the resolution of class

26 action strip search cases in this and other jurisdictions.

27 28 14.

Such other matters as any party considers conducive to the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action.

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 9

Case 3:07-cv-01770-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 10 of 10

1

The parties have no other suggestions to offer at this time.

2 DATED: July 17, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

3

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

4 5 6 7 DATED: July 17, 2007 8

BY: /s/ - “Mark E. Merin” Mark E. Merin Attorney for Plaintiffs
Respectfully submitted,
BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE

9

10

BY: /s/ - “Gregory J. Rockwell”

Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.

11

Attorney for Defendant

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Suon, et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al . JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Page 10

 
 1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Joshua Kaizuka (State Bar No. 212195)
2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

5 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

6 Gregory J. Rockwell (SBN 67305)
BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE 7 A Profethssional Corporation
555 12 Street, Suite 1800 8 P. O. Box 12925
Oakland, CA 94604-2925 9 Telephone: (510) 834-4350
Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

10 Attorneys for DEFENDANTS

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 LISA SUON, JEFFREY PEY, ANDY MEAN,
14 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
15 Plaintiffs,

Case No. CV 07-01770MMC
AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

16 vs.

17 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA

18 COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT; ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION

19 OFFICER DONALD H. BLEVINS, in his individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA

20

COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER SHEILA L. FOSTER, in her

21

individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION

22

OFFICER RICHARD A. MUENCH, in his individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA

23

COUNTY DEPUTY CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES WILLIAM E. FENTON, in his

24 individual and official capacity,

DATE: August 22, 2008 TIME: 9:00 a.m. CTRM: 7 JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

25

Defendants.

26 \\\

27 \\\

28 \\\ 1
AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

WHEREAS, plaintiffs LISA SUON, JEFFREY PEY, and ANDY MEAN, on behalf of

2 themselves and all persons similarly situated, by and through his attorney, Mark E. Merin of the Law

3 Office of Mark E. Merin, and defendants, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA COUNTY

4 PROBATION DEPARTMENT, ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER DONALD H.

5 BLEVINS, ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER SHEILA L.

6 FOSTER, ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER RICHARD A.

7 MUENCH, and ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES WILLIAM E.

8 FENTON, by and through their counsel, Gregory J. Rockwell of the law firm Boornazian, Jensen &

9 Garthe, have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement intending to resolve all claims raised in this class

10 action pending in this Court;

11

WHEREAS, the Stipulation of Settlement, together with the supporting materials, sets forth the

12 terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the pending above-

13 captioned class action against all defendants;

14

WHEREAS, the Court has before it and has reviewed the parties’ Stipulated Motion for

15 Preliminary Approval of Settlement of Class Action together with the Stipulation of Settlement and

16 supporting materials; and

17

WHEREAS, the Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of

18 Settlement were the result of good faith, arms’ length settlement negotiations between competent and

19 experienced counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants, after mediation before the Honorable Raul

20 Ramirez (Retired);

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

22 I.
23

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

24

1. The terms of the Stipulation of Settlement are hereby preliminarily approved and the class

25

is preliminarily certified, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing

26

provided for below. The Court finds that the settlement is sufficiently within the range of

27

reasonableness and that notice of the proposed settlement should be given as provided in

28

this Order.

2

AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

2. The Court further finds that plaintiffs LISA SUON, JEFFREY PEY and ANDY MEAN

2

are adequate class representatives for the settlement class.

3

3. The Court further finds that plaintiffs’ counsel Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark

4

E. Merin is adequate class counsel.

5

4. The Court approves the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Strip Search Case

6

attached hereto as Exhibit A and further approves the method by which notice is proposed

7

to be given.

8

5. If, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the settlement is not

9

consummated, the preliminary approval of the Stipulation of Settlement and the

10

preliminary certification of the class shall be void and the parties shall have reserved all of

11

the rights to continue with any litigation or further mediation or settlement discussions.

12

6. The Bar Date, as defined in paragraph 2 of the Stipulation of Settlement shall be January

13

16, 2009.

14 II.
15

NOTICE TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS, APPROVAL OF CLASS COUNSEL, AND EMPLOYMENT OF CLASS CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR

16 7. Counsel for the class (“class counsel”) is as follows:

17

Mark E. Merin, Esq.

18

Law Office of Mark E. Merin

19

2001 P Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

20

(916) 443-6911 - Telephone

(916) 447-8336 - Facsimile

21

22

8. Counsel for defendants are as follows:

23

Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.

24

Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe 555 12th Street, Suite 1800

25

P. O. Box 12925

Oakland, CA 94604-2925

26

Telephone: (510) 834-4350

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897 27

28 \\\

3

AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

9. Class Claims Administrator is as follows:

2

Gilardi and Company, LLC

3

P.O. Box 8060

San Rafael, CA 94912-8060

4

(415) 461-0410 - Telephone

(800) Toll Free Number to be arranged.

5

(415) 461-0412 – Facsimile

6 10. On or before October 14, 2008, counsel for the parties acting with the Class Claims
7 Administrator shall cause to be disseminated the Notice and Claim Form, substantially in
8 the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, in the manner set forth in paragraphs 55
9 through 58 of the Stipulation of Settlement. Such summary notice as the parties agree will
10 be published in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement and announcements
11 following a script approved by the parties will be made on such radio stations with the
12 frequency provided in the Stipulation of Settlement. Class members will have up to and
13
including January 16, 2009, in which to object to this settlement or file claims. Prior to 14
the Fairness Hearing, the Claims Administrator shall file and serve a sworn statement 15
attesting to compliance with the provisions of this paragraph. 16
11. The notice to be provided as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement is hereby found to 17
be the best means practicable of providing notice under the circumstances and, when 18
completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement and of the 19
Fairness Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the 20
settlement, in full compliance with applicable statutes and Constitution of the state of 21
California, due process, the Constitution of the United States and all other applicable laws. 22
The notices are accurate, objective, informative and provide class members with all of the 23
necessary information to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the 24
settlement and its fairness. 25
12. Counsel for the respective parties are authorized to retain Gilardi and Company, LLC, 26
P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, as Class Claims Administrator in accordance 27
with the Stipulation of Settlement and this Order. 28
4
AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1 III. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IV.

13. Any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded (“Opt Out”) from the Settlement Class must send a written request for exclusion to the Court at the address indicated in the Notice, postmarked on or before the Bar Date. The request for exclusion shall fully comply with the requirements set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. Members of the Settlement Class may not exclude themselves by filing requests for exclusions as a group or class, but must, in each instance, individually and personally execute a request for exclusion and timely transmit it to the Court.
14. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement, including but not limited to the releases, waivers, and covenants described in the Stipulation of Settlement, whether or not such person objected to the settlement and whether or not such person made a claim under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
THE FAIRNESS HEARING

17

15. A hearing on final approval, the “Fairness Hearing,” is hereby scheduled to be held before

18

this Court on February 27, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the fairness, reasonableness,

19

and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the dismissal with prejudice of this class action

20

complaint with respect to the released parties herein, and the entry of final judgment in the

21

class action. Class counsels’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs shall be

22

heard at the time of the Fairness Hearing. The motion for final approval and class

23

counsels’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs shall be filed no later than

24

February 13, 2009.

25

16. The date and time of the Fairness Hearing shall be set forth in the Notice, but the Fairness

26

Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without further notice to the

27

members of the settlement class other than that which may be issued by the Court.

28 \\\ 5
AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

17. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the settlement class may, but need

2

not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. Settlement class members who

3

do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented by class

4

counsel.

5

18. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the settlement class may, but need

6

not, submit comments or objections to the proposed settlement. Any class member may

7

object to the proposed settlement, entry of the final order and judgment approving the

8

settlement, and class counsels’ application for fees and expenses by filing and serving a

9

written objection.

10

19. Any class member making the objection (an “objector”) must sign the objection

11

personally. Any objection must state why the objector objects to the proposed settlement

12

and provide the basis to support such position. If an objector intends to appear personally

13

at the Fairness Hearing, the objector must include with the objection a notice of the

14

objector’s intent to appear at the hearing.

15

20. Objections, along with any notice of intent to appear, must be filed with the Court no later

16

than January 16, 2009. If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than one class member,

17

counsel must identify each such class member and each class member must have complied

18

with the requirements of this order. The documents must be filed with the clerk of the

19

Court at the following address: United States District Court, Northern District of

20

California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102.

21

21. Objections, along with any notice of intent to appear, must also be mailed to class counsel

22

and counsel for defendants at the addresses listed below:

23

Counsel for the class (“class counsel”) is as follows:

24 Mark E. Merin, Esq.

25

Law Office of Mark E. Merin

2001 P Street, Suite 100

26

Sacramento, CA 95814

27

(916) 443-6911 - Telephone (916) 447-8336 - Facsimile

28

6

AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

Counsel for defendants are as follows:

2

Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.

3

Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe A Professional Corporation

4

555 12th Street, Suite 1800

P. O. Box 12925

5

Oakland, CA 94604-2925

Telephone: (510) 834-4350

6

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

7

22. Only class members who have filed and served valid and timely notices of objection shall

8

be entitled to be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Any class member who does not timely file

9

and serve an objection in writing to the settlement, entry of final order and judgment, or to

10

class counsels’ application for fees and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set

11

forth in the class notice and mandated in the order, shall be deemed to have waived any

12

such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.

13

23. Persons wishing to be heard at the Fairness Hearing are required to file written comments

14

or objections and indicate in their written comments or objections their intention to appear

15

at the Fairness Hearing. Settlement class members need not appear at the hearing or take

16

any other action to indicate their approval.

17

24. All members of the settlement class who do not personally and timely request to be

18

excluded from the class are enjoined from proceeding against the defendants until such

19

time as the Court renders a final decision regarding approval of the settlement and, if the

20

settlement is approved, enters final judgment as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement.

21 V.
22

OTHER PROVISIONS

23

25. Upon approval of the settlement provided for in the Stipulation of Settlement, each and

24

every term and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set

25

forth and shall have the force and effect of an order of this Court.

26

26. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the settlement class as well as

27

administering the Stipulation of Settlement shall be paid as set forth in the Stipulation of

28

Settlement.

7

AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 DATED: August 28, 2008 3
4

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8
AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE
If you were booked and strip searched at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall on or before April 11, 2007, and had not reached the age of 20 by March 28, 2007, you will be entitled
to monetary compensation under a strip search class action settlement.
A class action strip search lawsuit is presently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The parties have proposed a Settlement which, if it receives final approval, will provide that persons booked and strip searched at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall on or before April 11, 2007, who had not reached the age of 20 by March 28, 2007, will be eligible to receive money. Records of the Alameda County Juvenile Hall and the Alameda County Probation Department show that you are a member of the class entitled to recover monetary compensation. To receive compensation in this pending settlement, you must fill out and mail a claim form. DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, THE ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT.

IF YOU WISH TO CLAIM MONETARY COMPENSATION, YOU MUST OBTAIN, FILL OUT AND MAIL A CLAIM FORM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BUT NO LATER THAN JANUARY 16, 2009.
For more information, please read this notice.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION.

There is now pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, a class action filed on behalf of all persons booked and strip searched at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall on or before April 11, 2007, and had not reached the age of 20 by March 28, 2007. A Stipulation of Settlement, approved preliminarily by the Court, defines the class and sub-classes included in this settlement as follows:

a.

All juveniles booked and strip searched at Alameda County Juvenile Hall on or before April 11, 2007, who had not

reached the age of 20 by March 28, 2007;

b.

The sub-class of juveniles who were booked solely on misdemeanor, infraction, ordinance violation, or other non-

felony offenses not involving violence, drugs or weapons, and strip searched during the period of their incarceration;

c.

The sub-class of all juveniles booked at Alameda County Juvenile Hall on felony charges not involving violence,

drugs or weapons who were strip searched during the period of their incarceration.

You have received this Notice either because records maintained by the Alameda County Juvenile Hall and/or the Alameda County Probation Department indicate that you are in the settlement class or you contacted the Claims Administrator and requested a Claim Form. Whether or not you qualify as a class member will be based solely upon the records of the Alameda County Juvenile Hall and/or the Alameda County Probation Department. If these records do not contain your name and show you to be within the definition of the class, you will not qualify.

This Notice is to inform you that a settlement has been proposed in this action and that, as a potential class member, your rights may be affected by the settlement. This Notice also summarizes the terms and effect of the proposed settlement, what you can do to participate in it, how you may obtain money under the settlement, and what you must do if you choose to exclude yourself from the class.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED TERMS

A Settlement Agreement (ASettlement@) was entered into after extensive negotiations between the parties, conducted with the assistance of a third party mediator. The Parties are requesting that the Court approve the Settlement.

A. Parties to the Settlement.

The parties to the Settlement are the Plaintiffs in Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al., United States District Court Case No. C 0701770 MMC, which was filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, and various defendants including

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

Page 1 of 4

Alameda County, Alameda County Probation Department, Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, and Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton. Counsel for the class is Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95811.

B. Defendants Do Not Admit Any Liability

Plaintiffs allege that the acts and/or omissions which are the subject of the claims covered by these action (strip searches) violated various federal laws. Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny any liability to plaintiffs or to any other class members. The parties have agreed that, in order to avoid long and costly litigation, this controversy should be settled pursuant to the terms of the settlement as described in this Notice, subject to the approval of the Court.

C.

Monetary Terms of Settlement

a.

Payment of Claims

Defendants shall pay up to $4,286,660.00 under the terms of the settlement which will be referred to as the Class Fund.

In addition to funds reserved for the payment of Class Claims, Class Counsel will receive, subject to approval of the Court, $1,000,000.00 as attorney=s fees and reimbursement costs and expenses. Up to $250,000.00 will be allocated for the costs of claim administration.

b.

Payment to Representative Plaintiffs

Under the terms of the settlement, three representative plaintiffs will receive a total of $225,000.00 to be allocated among them.

c.

Payment to Class Members Who File Claims

Money for the class will be paid out as follows:

For each booking, up to two (2), at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall, during the class period, after being arrested on any charge including violence drugs or weapons as identified on the charge list attached as Exhibit 2 to the Stipulation of Settlement, you shall receive Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) if the arrest was solely for a misdemeanor charge, or Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) for each such booking if the arrest was for a felony charge.

For each booking, up to two (2), at Alameda County Juvenile Hall during the class period on charges not involving violence, drugs or weapons and not listed on the charge list attached as Exhibit 2 to the Stipulation of Settlement, you shall receive Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) if the charges on which you were booked were solely misdemeanors, provided that you had not been previously booked at Alameda County Jail during the previous five (5) years on a charge listed on that charge list; or One Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) for each such booking, up to a maximum of two (2) bookings, if the charges on which you were booked included a felony.

After all claims have been validated and values assigned to each claim, the Claims Administrator will total all claims. If the total value of all validated claims is equal to or less than Two Million, Eight Hundred Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($2,811.600.00), claims shall be paid as set out below. If the total value of all validated claims exceeds Two Million, Eight Hundred Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($2,811,600.00), the value of each claim will be proportionately reduced so that the sum of all validated claims equals Two Million, Eight Hundred Eleven Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($2,811,600.00), and such sums shall be paid out as set out below. If you have a Debt Owed to the County, or have outstanding court-ordered restitution or child support obligations, up to a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of your award will be deducted to pay that debt or court ordered restitution or child support, but you will be given an opportunity to object to any such deduction. If you are under 18 at the time a check is mailed for payment of your claim, the check will be restricted so that it will have to be deposited in a blocked account and funds therefrom may only be withdrawn after you reach the age of 18.

D.

Strip Search Policy

Defendants now have promulgated revised strip search policies regarding the conduct of strip searches which defendants believe conform with state and federal law.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

Page 2 of 4

E.

Your Options as a Class Member

1.

Be Bound by, and Participate in the Settlement.

TO QUALIFY FOR A PAYMENT you must submit a completed Claim Form to the Claims Administrator. If you receive a notice by First Class Mail, a Claim Form with a self-addressed, stamped return envelope will be included in the notice package. You may also get a Claim Form by: (1) calling this toll free number: 1-888-312-0813; (2) visiting the website www.suonvalamedacounty.com; or (3) writing the Claims Administrator at: Alameda County Juvenile Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060. If you are in custody of Alameda County, during the claims period, claim forms and self-addressed envelopes will be available from the supervisors at the institution in which you are incarcerated.

You have until January 16, 2009, to submit a claim or to exclude yourself from the settlement.

Mail your completed Claim Form to: Alameda County Juvenile Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060. DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, THE ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT.

Remember, if you do not submit a Claim Form, you cannot get a payment. If you submit a claim form, you will be bound by the settlement and receive money (if you are a class member). If you do not submit a claim form but do not exclude yourself from the class (as explained in the next paragraph), you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and dismissal entered in this case, but you will not receive any money.

By participating in this Settlement you will be waiving all your rights to all claims up to and including March 27, 2007, relating to strip searches at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall, even those of which you are not presently aware.

2.

Exclude Yourself From the Class

You do not have to take part in the Settlement or be a member of the class. This is called Aexcluding@ yourself. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment and you cannot object to the Settlement. Any Court orders will not apply to you. To exclude yourself, you must sign a request for exclusion letter that states that you want to be excluded from Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al., United States District Court, Northern District, Case No. CV 07-01770 MMC. Your exclusion letter must be mailed and postmarked before January 16, 2009, to: United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

If you do not follow these instructions properly, you will lose your right to exclude yourself. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any money from the Settlement of this case and you cannot tell the Court you do not like the Settlement (which is called Aobjecting@). If you exclude yourself, you are no longer part of the class or the Settlement. But you may be able to sue to be part of a different lawsuit about the claims in this case.

F.

Fairness Hearing and Process for Objections.

A fairness hearing will be held on February 27, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. If you are a class member and do not exclude yourself, you can tell the Court you do not like the Settlement or some part of it at this hearing. This is called objecting to the Settlement. For example, you can say you do not think the Settlement is fair or adequate. The Court will consider your views.

To object, you must send a letter to the court that contains all of the following:

1.

The name and title of the lawsuit, Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al., United States District Court Case No. CV

07-01770 MMC;

2.

A statement of each objection you have and the facts that support the objections;

3.

A description of any law or case supporting the objections;

4.

A statement on whether or not you or your lawyer will ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing to talk about your

objections, and, if so, how long you will need to present your objections; and

5.

Copies of any documents you or your lawyer will present at the Fairness Hearing.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

Page 3 of 4

At the hearing on the proposed settlement, the Court may schedule further hearings without further notice to the class. The matters considered at such future hearings may include, but shall not be limited to, further consideration of the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the determination of the settlement of individual claims filed by class members, consideration of the request for attorneys= fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses to class counsel, and the form and entry of the final judgment of dismissal in the event the proposed settlement is approved by the court.
Individually, or through counsel, any class member has the right to object to the proposed Settlement as a whole, to the amount of attorneys= fees and costs of Class Counsel, or to any portion of either. ALL SUCH OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 16, 2009, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102, ATTENTION: CLERK, RE: SUON, ET AL. V. ALAMEDA COUNTY, ET AL., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. CV 07-01770 MMC. If you wish to appear and present your objections at the fairness hearing, you must also submit a Notice of Intention to Appear that identifies the case, contains your name and address, and explains the reason the appearance is desired. The Notice of Intention to Appear and any objections must be filed with the Court on or before January 16, 2009. You may be represented by your own attorney. If you are to be represented by an attorney at the hearing, his or her name, address and telephone number must be included in the Notice of Intention to Appear as well.
A copy of the Statement of Objection and/or Notice of Intention to Appear must also be mailed to: Mark E. Merin, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814; and Gregory J. Rockwell, Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe, P. O. Box 12925, Oakland, CA 94604-2925.
G. How to Obtain Further Information
For additional information regarding the Settlement and Claim Form, or a copy of the Settlement Agreement, Claim Form or Class Counsel=s Application for Attorney=s Fees, you or your counsel should contact: Alameda County Juvenile Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060. You may also check the Class Administrator=s website at www.suonvalamedacounty.com or call 1-888-312-0813. You may also obtain detailed information about the case by examining the Court file located in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, THE ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT.
H. Court Approval.
Although the Court has reviewed the proposed Settlement, no decision has been, or will be, reached by the Court, until the Fairness Hearing. This Notice does not indicate that the Court has approved the Settlement.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

Page 4 of 4

EXHIBIT B

CLAIM FORM
ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL STRIP SEARCH LAWSUIT
CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM
SUON, ET AL. V. ALAMEDA COUNTY, ET AL. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. CV 07-01770 MMC

Must be Received by January 16, 2009
SUON1

FILL OUT THIS FORM IF:
YOU WERE BOOKED AND STRIP SEARCHED AT ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL ON OR BEFORE APRIL 11, 2007, AND HAD NOT REACHED THE AGE OF 20 BY MARCH 28, 2007.
YOU MUST COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS CLAIM FORM NO LATER THAN JANUARY 16, 2009, to qualify for payment from settlement of this class action strip search case against the County of Alameda and others. If you do not return a completed claim form by the due date you will receive no money from the settlement. DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, THE COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JUVENILE HALL REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT.

CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM
«BARCODE» SUON1--«CLAIM7»-«CKDIG» «FIRSTNAME» «LASTNAME» «ADDR1» «ADDR2» «CITY» «ST» «ZIP» «PHONE NUMBER» «CA. DRIVERS LICENSE NO.:» «DATE OF BIRTH» «NAME OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN»

Please enter your correct name, address and other information if it does not appear correctly above:

Last Name:

First Name:

Address:

Telephone Number (Day)

Telephone Number (Evening)

City: Social Security Number:

State: Zip Code: —
CA. Drivers License No.:

Date of Birth:

Name of Parent or Guardian:

If you were booked and strip searched at Alameda County Juvenile Hall on or before April 11, 2007, and had not reached the age of 20 by March 28, 2007, you are a member of the settlement class and will be entitled to recover money.
Your entitlement to money and the amount you will receive will be determined solely by the records maintained by Alameda County and the Alameda County Probation Department.
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
For each booking at the Alameda County Juvenile Hall, during the class period, after being arrested on any charge involving violence, drugs or weapons, you shall receive Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each such booking, if the arrest was solely for a misdemeanor charge, or Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) for each such booking if the arrest was for a felony charge, up to a maximum of two (2) bookings total.
For each booking at Alameda County Juvenile Hall during the class period on charges not involving violence, drugs or weapons, you shall receive Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) if the charges on which you were booked were solely misdemeanors, up to a maximum of two (2) bookings, provided that you had not been previously booked at Alameda County Jail during the previous five (5) years on a charge involving violence, drugs or weapons; or One Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) for each such booking, up to a maximum of two (2) bookings, if the charges on which you were booked included a felony.

*SUON1FIRST*

1

The above amounts paid out on individual claims are subject to being proportionately reduced if the value of all claims submitted exceeds $2,811,600.00. Up to 50% of the award to persons who owe debts to the County or owe court-ordered restitution or child support will be withheld and paid to the County to reduce or discharge the debts and/or to discharge or pay down the courtordered restitution or child support.
The representative plaintiffs will share $225,000.00; the class counsel will receive $1,000,000.00 for fees, costs and expenses, subject to court approval, and the Claims Administrators will receive up to $250,000.00.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION:
WERE YOU BOOKED AND STRIP SEARCHED PRIOR TO A DETENTION HEARING AT THE ALAMEDA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL ON OR BEFORE APRIL 11, 2007?

YES NO

IF YOU ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, YOU MUST SIGN THIS CLAIM FORM.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.

CLAIMANTS MUST SIGN THIS FORM:

Dated:

Signature:

FOR CLAIMANTS UNDER 18, A PARENT OR GUARDIAN,

IF AVAILABLE, MUST SIGN THIS FORM:

If you are under the age of 18 at the time you submit this claim form, you must provide the name, address and telephone number of a parent or guardian, and the parent or guardian must sign this claim form if the parent or guardian is readily available to you. If you have no parent or guardian or no parent or guardian is available to you, you may sign on your own behalf. If you are under 18 at the time a check is mailed for payment of your claim, the check will be restricted so that it will have to be deposited in a blocked account and funds therefrom may only be withdrawn after you reach the age of 18.

PARENT OR GUARDIAN:

THE CLAIMANT NAMED ABOVE IS A MINOR AND, AS THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN, I AM AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT

THIS CLAIM ON HIS/HER BEHALF, AND I DO SO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE

Dated:

OF CALIFORNIA.

Please Print Name of Parent or Guardian:

Address: Telephone Number (Day)

Signature of Parent or Guardianor claimant if no parent or Guardian is available:
Telephone Number (Evening)

Use return envelope and mail the completed claim form to: Class Claim Administrator: Alameda County Juvenile Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060. DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, THE COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JUVENILE HALL REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT. The information given here is private and will remain confidential, subject to the provisions of California law which may require the disclosure of the information provided. If you have any questions about this lawsuit, write to the Claims Administrator at Alameda County Juvenile Hall Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, or visit our website at www.suonvalamedacounty.com.
THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND RETURNED WITH A POSTMARK NO LATER THAN JANUARY 16, 2009..
If you would like your settlement check mailed to an address other than that on the first page of the Claim Form, provide it here: (Address if different) to which settlement check should be mailed:
Address:

City:

State: Zip Code: —

*SUON1SECOND* 2

 
 1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Joshua Kaizuka (State Bar No. 212195)
2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

5 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

6 Gregory J. Rockwell (SBN 67305)
BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE 7 A Profethssional Corporation
555 12 Street, Suite 1800 8 P. O. Box 12925
Oakland, CA 94604-2925
9 Telephone: (510) 834-4350 Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

10 Attorneys for DEFENDANTS

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 LISA SUON, JEFFREY PEY, ANDY MEAN,
14 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case No. CV 07-01770MMC ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

15 Plaintiffs,

16 vs.

17 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA

18 COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT; ALAMEDA COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION

19 OFFICER DONALD H. BLEVINS, in his individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA

20

COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER SHEILA L. FOSTER, in her

21

individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA COUNTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROBATION

22

OFFICER RICHARD A. MUENCH, in his individual and official capacity; ALAMEDA

23

COUNTY DEPUTY CHIEF OF JUVENILE FACILITIES WILLIAM E. FENTON, in his

24 individual and official capacity,

DATE: TIME: CTRM:
JUDGE:

February 27, 2009 9:00 a.m. 7
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

25

Defendants.

26

This matter came on regularly for a Fairness Hearing on February 27, 2009, in Courtroom 7 of the

27 above-entitled Court, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney presiding. Plaintiff Class was represented by

28

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1 Class Counsel Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin; Defendants were represented by

2 Gregory J. Rockwell of Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe.

3

After considering the submissions of the parties, including the Stipulated Motion for Preliminary

4 Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action, together with the extensive

5 exhibits attached thereto; the unopposed Application of Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel for Award of Attorneys=

6 Fees and Costs; the Joint Submission of the Parties in Support of Final Approval of the Stipulation of

7 Settlement; the arguments of counsel; and the submission from the Class Claims Administrator,

8

IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

9

1. On August 28, 2008, this Court entered its order preliminarily approving settlement of the

10 above-captioned class action. Since the entry of the Court=s Preliminary Order, in accordance with the

11 Stipulation of Settlement as proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the requisite notice of the Settlement,

12 with opt-out and objection information, was published in the Oakland Tribune on October 25, 29, and

13 November 5, 2008, and in the East Bay Express on October 29, November 5, and 12, 2008.

14 Announcements of the settlement were made on radio stations KMEL, KYLD & KSOL three times a

15 week during the weeks of November 3, 10 and 17, 2008. The notice of the Settlement and approved

16 claim forms were posted by First Class Mail to the last-known address of each person in the Settlement

17 Class. Both the published notice and the mailed notice specified that Claim Forms had to be delivered to

18 the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later than January 16, 2009.

19

2. Both the published and mailed notices specified that any person who chose to object to the

20 Settlement, either personally or through counsel, and desired to appear at the Fairness Hearing, was

21 required to submit a Notice of Intention to appear, together with written arguments in support of any

22 objection, by January 16, 2009. No written objections have been received by counsel and/or filed with

23 the Court.

24

3. The Court finds that the Class should be and hereby is certified under Rule 23(a) and Rule

25 23(b)(3) because it satisfies all of the requirements for certification as recited by the Court in the hearing

26 on the fairness of the settlement on February 27, 2009.

27 //

28 // 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

4. The Court is satisfied from all of the memoranda of law, declarations, and exhibits

2 submitted to the Court, that the Stipulation of Settlement is fair, and the Court now finds for the reasons

3 stated on the record at the hearing on February 27, 2009, that the Stipulation of Settlement is fair and

4 finally approves it as such. The Stipulation of Settlement is incorporated herein by this reference as if set

5 out in full.

6

5. The “Settlement Class” means all of those persons who are members of the following

7 defined class and sub-classes:

8

a. All juveniles booked and strip searched at Alameda County Juvenile Hall on or

9

before April 11, 2007, who had not reached the age of 20 by March 28, 2007;

10

b. The sub-class of juveniles who were booked solely on misdemeanor, infraction,

11

ordinance violation, or other non-felony offenses not involving violence, drugs or

12

weapons, and strip searched during the period of their incarceration;

13

c. The sub-class of all juveniles booked at Alameda County Juvenile Hall on felony

14

charges not involving violence, drugs or weapons who were strip searched during

15

the period of their incarceration.

16

6. Persons who previously commenced civil litigation challenging the legality of any strip

17 search at the Alameda County Juvenile hall during the class period and have prevailed, settled or had

18 their complaints denied on their merits, and persons who have given timely notice of their election to be

19 excluded from the Settlement Class are not included in the Settlement Class.

20

7. All claims and complaints of the named Representative Plaintiffs, together with all

21 persons in the Settlement Class, are now dismissed with prejudice as to all of the Released Persons,

22 defined to include all Defendants, their predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past,

23 present and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys and/or agents of the County of

24 Alameda. Claims and complaints of such persons are now forever barred, and all Settlement Class

25 Members are enjoined from asserting against any Released Persons any and all claims which the

26 Settlement Class Members had, have, or may have in the future arising out of the facts alleged in the

27 complaints.

28 // 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1

8. Each Released Person is released from the claims which any Settlement Class Member

2 has had or may in the future have against any such Released Persons arising out of the facts in the

3 complaint.

4

9. This Court explicitly finds that the Stipulation of Settlement, as amended herein and with

5 the agreement of the parties as stated on the record at the February 27, 2009 hearing of the matter,

6 specifically, to increase the amount allocated to pay verified claims of the Settlement Class Members,

7 from $2,811,600.00 to $2,886,600.00, and to reduce the amount to be distributed to the Representative

8 Plaintiffs, from $225,000.00 to $150,000.00, which Stipulation of Settlement as amended is now made

9 final by this Judgment, was entered into in good faith, is fair and reasonable, and adequate, and is in the

10 best interest of the Class. The Court expressly finds the amount of attorney’s fees and costs sought to be

11 fair and reasonable and expressly approves payment to class counsel, Mark E. Merin of the Law Office

12 of Mark E. Merin, in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), as and for attorney fees and costs,

13 for the representation of Settlement Class Members herein, to be paid as provided in the Stipulation of

14 Settlement.

15

10. The Court further explicitly approves payment from the payment fund of a total of One

16 Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) to be distributed to the Representative Plaintiffs, Lisa

17 Suon, Jeffrey Pey and Andy Mean, as specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court finds the

18 amount is fair and adequate in view of the damages suffered by the Representative Plaintiffs and the

19 efforts they expended in litigating this case in the more than two years from the time the original claim

20 was filed.

21

11. Claims have been submitted and, in accordance with the claims processing procedure

22 specified in the Stipulation of Settlement, will be reviewed, valued, and paid by the Claims Administrator

23 from funds provided by the Defendants as soon as practicable following the effective date of this

24 Judgment, meaning the date it is entered and becomes final. Such Judgment will be deemed final only

25 upon the expiration of the time to appeal or, if a notice of appeal is filed in this matter, upon exhaustion

26 of all appeals and petitions for writ of certiorari.

27

12. The Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties in this action,

28 including Defendants and all Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe and enforce 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

1 the Settlement in accordance with the terms for the mutual benefit of all of the parties.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint in this action be

3 dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be and the same hereby is entered pursuant to the terms of

4 this Order.

5 Dated: February 27, 2009 6 7

______________________________________ HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY Judge, United States District Court Northern District of California

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.: USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 07-1770 MMC

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-01770-MMC As of: 06/27/2012 12:05 PM PDT 1 of 6
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,PRVADR
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−01770−MMC

Suon et al v. County of Alameda et al Assigned to: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Lisa Suon on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
Plaintiff Jeffrey Pay on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated
Plaintiff Andy Mean on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated

Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Date Terminated: 02/27/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Mark E. Merin , Esq. Law Office of Mark E. Merin 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916−443−6911 Fax: 916−447−8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Alameda
Defendant Alameda County Probation Department

represented by Gregory J. Rockwell Boornazian Jensen &Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P.O. Box 12925 Oakland, CA 94604−2925 510−834−4350 Fax: 510−839−1897 Email: grockwell@bjg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-01770-MMC As of: 06/27/2012 12:05 PM PDT 2 of 6

Defendant Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins in his individual and official capacity
Defendant Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster in her individual and official capacity
Defendant Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench in his individual and official capacity
Defendant Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton in his individual and official capacity

represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/28/2007
03/28/2007 03/28/2007 05/10/2007

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; summons issued against Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department (Filing fee $ 350,receipt number 34611004612). Filed by Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/30/2007 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/2007)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 7/5/2007. Case Management Conference set for 7/11/2007 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 EMC Standing Order; # 2 CM Standing Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2007) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2007) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean. Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins served on 4/25/2007, answer due 5/15/2007; Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster served on 4/25/2007, answer due 5/15/2007; Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench served on 4/25/2007, answer due 5/15/2007; Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton served on 4/25/2007, answer due 5/15/2007; County of Alameda served on 4/25/2007,

Case: 3:07-cv-01770-MMC As of: 06/27/2012 12:05 PM PDT 3 of 6

05/11/2007
05/11/2007
05/15/2007 05/16/2007 05/18/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 07/02/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/19/2007 07/24/2007

answer due 5/15/2007; Alameda County Probation Department served on 4/25/2007, answer due 5/15/2007. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
4 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byAlameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
5 First Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
6 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2007) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
7 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Martin J. Jenkins for all further proceedings. Judge Edward M. Chen no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 5/16/07. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2007) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
8 CLERK'S NOTICE − Case Management Conference in reassigned case set for 7/17/2007 02:00 PM before Hon. Martin J. Jenkins, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 7/10/2007. (epb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2007) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
9 ADR Clerks Notice re: Non−Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
10 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Case to be reassigned. All pending dates vacated and to be reset by newly assigned judge. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 6/26/07. (epb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
11 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Maxine M. Chesney for all further proceedings. Judge Martin J. Jenkins no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 06/27/07. (mab, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
12 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 7/20/2007. Case Management Conference set for 7/27/2007 10:30 AM.. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 2/27/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Orders)(tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2007) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
13 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 7/3/2007) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean re 12 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings,, Case Management Scheduling Order, (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 7/3/2007) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
15 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR by Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 7/3/2007) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
16 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRIVATE ADR. The deadline to complete mediation by the Honorable Raul Ramirez is April 16, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 3, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2007) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
17 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
18 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 7/24/2007) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

Case: 3:07-cv-01770-MMC As of: 06/27/2012 12:05 PM PDT 4 of 6

07/27/2007 02/13/2008 02/13/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 08/08/2008
08/08/2008
08/15/2008 08/18/2008 08/19/2008

19 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 7/27/2007 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 7/27/2007). Case Management Statement due by 5/23/2008. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/30/2008 10:30 AM. (Not Reported.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/27/2007) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
20 STIPULATION Stipulation to Continue Mediation Deadline and Case Mgmt Conf. by County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 2/13/2008) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
21 Proposed Order 20 Continuing Mediation Deadline and Case Mgmt Conference by County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 2/13/2008) Modified on 2/14/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 02/13/2008)
22 ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION DEADLINE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The deadline for completion of private mediation is continued from April 16, 2008 to June 30, 2008. The Case Management Conference is continued from May 30, 2008 to August 22, 2008; a Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than August 15, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 19, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2008) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference Continued for 8/22/2008 10:30 AM. A Joint Case Management Statement due by 8/15/2008. Re 22 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/19/2008) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
23 MOTION for Settlement − Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action filed by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. Motion Hearing set for 8/22/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 P's &A's, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 8/8/2008) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
24 MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER for Protective Order for Disclosure of Records and Information filed by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. Motion Hearing set for 8/22/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 8/8/2008) Modified on 8/11/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 08/08/2008)
25 STIPULATION Request to Vacate Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 8/15/2008) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
26 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The August 22, 2008 Case Management Conference is vacated. The motion for preliminary approval remains as scheduled for August 22, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 18, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2008) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
27 STIPULATION TO AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Amended Protective Order for Disclosure of Records and Information

Case: 3:07-cv-01770-MMC As of: 06/27/2012 12:05 PM PDT 5 of 6

08/22/2008
08/25/2008
08/28/2008 08/28/2008 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 02/12/2009
02/12/2009

[Proposed])(Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 8/19/2008) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
28 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/22/2008 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 8/22/2008), ***Motions terminated: 24 MOTION for Protective Order for Disclosure of Records and Information filed by Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Jeffrey Pay, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Alameda County Probation Department, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Lisa Suon, Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, 23 MOTION for Settlement − Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action filed by Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Jeffrey Pay, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Probation Department, Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Lisa Suon.. Final Approval/ Fairness Hearing set for 2/27/2009 09:00 AM. (Court Reporter James Yeomans.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/22/2008) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
29 AMENDED DOCUMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. Amended Order for Preliminary Approval of Settlement of Class Action. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − AMENDED Notice, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − AMENDED Claim Form)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 8/25/2008) Modified on 8/26/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 08/25/2008)
30 ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 28, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2008) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
31 PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 28, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2008) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
32 MOTION for Attorney Fees Class Counsel's Application for Approval of Stipulated Attorney's Fees and Reimbursement of Costs filed by Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean. Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
33 Declaration of Mark E. Merin in Support of 32 MOTION for Attorney Fees Class Counsel's Application for Approval of Stipulated Attorney's Fees and Reimbursement of Costs filed byLisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 32 ) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
34 Joint MOTION for Settlement The Parties' Joint Submission in Support of Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement filed by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
35 Declaration of Ryanne Cozzi in Support of 34 Joint MOTION for Settlement The Parties' Joint Submission in Support of Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement filed byAlameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 34 ) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-01770-MMC As of: 06/27/2012 12:05 PM PDT 6 of 6

02/12/2009
02/27/2009 02/27/2009

36 Proposed Order and Judgment of Dismissal by Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Donald H. Blevins, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sheila L. Foster, Alameda County Assistant Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Muench, Alameda County Deputy Chief of Juvenile Facilities William E. Fenton, Lisa Suon, Jeffrey Pay, Andy Mean, County of Alameda, Alameda County Probation Department. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
37 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 27, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
38 Minute Entry: Final Approval Hearing held on 2/27/2009 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 2/27/2009). (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/27/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)