Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page1 of 32

1 NATIONALLAWYERSGU~D

2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14
1\ 15 \../'16
17 18 19 20

RACHEL LEDERMAN, SBN 130192 Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach, Attorneys at Law 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 9411 0 (415) 282-9300; fax (415) 285-5066 rlederman@2momslaw .com

eiUN 1 3 2U1!

CAROL SOBEL, SBN 84483 429 Santa Monica Blvd #550 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3439 (310) 393-3055; fax 310 451-3858 carolsobel@aol.com

additional counsel on next page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Cll-0286

DANIEL SPALDING, KATHARINE LONCKE, DANIELLE LOPEZ GREEN, ADRIAN DRUMMONDCOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
vs.

No. _ _ _ __
CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

21 CITY OF OAKLAND, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,
22 ANTHONY BATTS, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFF
23 ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY TORIBIO, DAVID DOWNING, ERSIE
24 JOYNER, MIKE POIRIER, DARRIN ALLISON,
25 GREGORY AHERN, individually and in their official capacities, and DOES 1-250, inclusive.
26

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1
28

. . '·

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page2 of 32

1 BOBBIE STEIN SBN 113239
2 503 Dolores Street, #20 1 San Francisco, CA 94110-1564
3 (415) 255-0301; fax (510) 601-5780
4 bstein8692@aol.com

5 R. MICHAEL FLYNN SBN 258732 6 Flynn Law Office
170 Columbus Street, Ste 300 7 San Francisco, CA 94133 8 (415) 989-8000 x 24; fax (415) 989-8028
rmflynnlaw@gmail.com
9
MARA VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD, D.C. Bar No. 450031 10 CARL MESSINEO, D.C. Bar No. 450033 11 PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
617 Florida Avenue, NW 12 Washington, DC 20001 13 (202) 232-1180; fax (202) 747-7477
mvh@justiceonline.org, cm@justiceonline.org 14 [Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice forthcoming]

15 I. INTRODUCTION
16

17

1. This is a civil rights class action arising from unconstitutional and unlawful

18 arrest and incarceration of approximately 150 people by the Oakland Police Department,

19 Alameda County Sheriff's Department, and multiple agencies working in joint action and
20 providing mutual aid under the direction of the Oakland Police, on November 5, 2010.
21
22 That day, hundreds of people participated in a rally in downtown Oakland to protest the

23 minimal sentence given former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle for his killing of

24 unarmed passenger Oscar Grant. Following the rally some of the demonstrators decided
25 to march toward Fruitvale BART. As evening fell, the Oakland Police and other law
26

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 2
28

... '·

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page3 of 32

1 enforcement agencies stopped the lawful First Amendment activity and forced the march
2 onto a side street where, without warning, demonstrators were trapped, detained,
3 prevented from dispersing, and arrested. The 150 class members were never ordered to
4
5 disperse or allowed the opportunity to disperse, and there was no probable cause or legal

6 basis to arrest them. Oakland and Alameda County proceeded to hold the class for an

7 excessive period of time in buses and vans, and then imprisoned them all in the Alameda
8 County Jail. The plaintiffs were incarcerated overnight, for up to 24 hours, in
9
10 overcrowded holding cells without cots or even room to lie on the floor, and subjected to

11 other unreasonable conditions of confinement. None of the class members were ever

12 charged.
13 2. The Oakland Police Department's actions, including the wrongful mass
14
15 arrest and imprisonment, violated multiple provisions of the Oakland Police Crowd

16 Management/ Crowd Control Policy that was entered into by stipulation of the parties and

17 order of the United States District Court in settlement of plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
18 relief in Coles, et al. v. City ofOakland and Local 10, International Longshore and
19 Warehouse Union, et al. v. City of Oakland, Nos. C03-2961 and 2962 TEH, on December
20
21 24, 2004. Plaintiffs further allege that the police and sheriff's department actions were

22 the result of unlawful and unconstitutional policies and practices of the City of Oakland,

23 the Oakland Police Department (OPD), and Alameda County and its Sheriff's Department
24
(ACSD). 25

26

3. OPD also violated the Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy with

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 3
28

•ll

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page4 of 32

1 unconstitutional and unlawful police misconduct at prior Oakland demonstrations
2 protesting the Oscar Grant killing, including during the period after the shooting in
3 January, 2009; and on July 8, 2010 (the day of the verdict in Mehserle's trial). On those
4
5 prior occasions, lawful political demonstrators were subjected to wrongful arrest and

6 excessive force, and to wrongful incarceration in the Alameda County Jail. The persons

7
arrested in conjunction with these prior demonstrations and other recent prior
8 demonstrations in Oakland suffered similar unreasonable conditions of confinement,
9
10 including being incarcerated overnight in overcrowded holding cells lacking sleeping

11 facilities.

12

4. The challenged OPD and ACSD misconduct create a substantial chilling

13 effect and deterrent to future First Amendment protected activity in Oakland. The named
14

15 plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of all those arrested in the November 5, 2010, mass arrest

16 in the vicinity of 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets, intend to participate in or

17 associate with peaceable protests and assemblies in the City of Oakland in the future.
18 They seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain defendants from
19 continuing to violate plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional and statutory rights, the
20

21 protections for these rights in the Oakland Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy,

22 and from using false arrests, false imprisonment, unreasonable conditions of confinement,

23 and other unlawful actions to disrupt, interfere with and deter future demonstrations and
24 protest activities in the City of Oakland and Alameda County.
25

26

5. Defendants' actions deprived the plaintiff class of their right to freedom of

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 4
28

•A

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page5 of 32

1 speech and association; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the
2 right to equal protection of the laws and to due process of law; the right to be free from
3 the use of excessive and/or arbitrary force; and the right to privacy, all guaranteed by the
4
5 United States and California Constitutions, as well as additional state law claims relating

6 to the police actions complained of herein.

7
II. JURISDICTION
8 6. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is based on 28
9
10 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims

11 under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

12

7. Plaintiffs have filed administrative claims with the City of Oakland and

13 Alameda County in compliance with California Government Code sections 910 et seq.
14

15 The claims have been denied expressly or by operation of law.

16

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

17

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

18 Therefore, venue and assignment lies in the United States District Court for the Northern
19 District of California, San Francisco Division or Oakland Division.
20

21

IV. THE PARTIES

22

A. Plaintiffs

23 9. DANIEL SPALDING is an adult education English as a Second Language
24 teacher, and resident of San Francisco, California, who volunteers as a National Lawyers
25

26 Guild legal observer. On November 5, 2010, Mr. Spalding in his capacity as legal

27
CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 5 28

. ..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page6 of 32

1 observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing the political demonstration in the vicinity
2
of 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets when, without notice or warning, police 3
surrounded him, closed off all avenues of exit, falsely detained and arrested him in the 4
5 absence of probable cause, and incarcerated him in the Alameda County Jail. Spalding
6 intends to engage in, and associate with, similar First Amendment activity in the future
7 but is concerned that he may be unlawfully prevented from doing so. 8
10. KATHARINE LONCKE is a writer and resident of Oakland, California,
9
10 who was peaceably and lawfully participating in the political demonstration on November
11 5, 2010, in the vicinity of 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets when, without
12 notice or warning, police surrounded her, closed off all avenues of exit, falsely detained 13
and arrested her in the absence of probable cause, and incarcerated her in the Alameda 14 15 County Jail. Loncke wants to engage in, and associate with, similar peaceable expressive
16 activity in the future but is concerned that she may again be unlawfully prevented from
17 doing so. 18
11. DANIELLE LOPEZ GREEN is a college student and resident of California, 19 20 who was peaceably and lawfully participating in the political demonstration on November 21 5, 2010, in the vicinity of 6th Avenue between East 17th and l81h Streets when, without
22 notice or warning, police surrounded her, closed off all avenues of exit, falsely detained 23
and arrested her in the absence of probable cause, and incarcerated her in the Alameda
24
County Jail. She wants to engage in, and associate with, similar peaceable expressive 25
26 activity in the future but is concerned she may again be unlawfully prevented from doing
27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6
28

•

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page7 of 32

1 so.
2 12. ADRIAN DRUMMOND-COLE is a museum guide and resident of
3 Oakland, California, who was peaceably and lawfully participating in the political
4
5 demonstration on November 5, 2010, in the vicinity of 6th Avenue between East 17th and

6 18th Streets when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him, closed off all

7 avenues of exit, falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause, and
8 incarcerated him in the Alameda County Jail. He wants to engage in, and associate with,
9
10 similar peaceable expressive activity in the future but is concerned he may again be

11 unlawfully prevented from doing so.

12

B. Defendants

13 13. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND is, and at all times herein mentioned was,
14

15 a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

16 California.

17

14. Defendant ANTHONY BATTS is and was at all times relevant herein the

18 Chief of Police for the CITY OF OAKLAND. Defendant BATTS was the policy-maker
19

for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND on the matters alleged herein related to the customs, 20

21 policies, practices, of the OPD, including, but not limited to, customs, policies and

22 practices related to policing of First Amendment activities; the training, supervision,

23 hiring, discipline, assignment and control of police officers; and the management and
24 supervision of OPD.
25

26

15. Defendants HOWARD JORDAN, JEFF ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS,

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 7
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page8 of 32

1 EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY TORIBIO, DAVID DOWNING, ERSIE JOYNER,
2 MIKE POIRIER, and DARRIN ALLISON, are, and at all times mentioned were,
3 command and/or supervisory employees of OPD who participated in the planning,
4 5 supervision and execution of the police conduct complained of herein.

6

16. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY is a political subdivision of the State of

7 California.
8 17. Defendant GREGORY AHERN is and was at all times relevant herein, the
9
10 Sheriff of Alameda County with responsibility for the confinement of prisoners at North

11 County Jail and for training, assigning and supervising all Alameda County Sherriffs

12 Department employees.
13 18. All of the above individual defendants are sued in their individual and
14
15 official capacities.

16

19. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants

17 sued herein as DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such
18 fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and
19
20 capacities when ascertained. The Doe defendants include other government entities, as

21 well as individuals, who participated in the conduct complained of herein. Plaintiffs are

22 informed and believe and therefore allege that each of the Doe defendants is legally
23
responsible and liable for the incident, injuries and damages hereinafter set forth, and that 24
each of said defendants proximately caused said incidents, injuries and damages by 25
26 reason of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control,

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 8
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page9 of 32

1 violation of constitutional and legal rights, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or
2 imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether
3 based upon agency, employment, or control or upon any other act or omission. Plaintiffs
4
5 will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such

6 facts are ascertained.

7

20. Each of the defendants, including defendants DOES 1 through 250, caused,

8 and is responsible for, the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by,
9

10 among other things, personally participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or

11 conspiring with others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion

12 policies, plans or actions that led to the unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to
13 prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing and refusing with deliberate indifference to
14
15 plaintiffs' rights to initiate and maintain adequate training and supervision; and by

16 ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and officers under their direction

17 and control, including failing to take remedial or disciplinary action.

18 21. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, acted within
19
20 the course and scope of their employment.

21

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

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

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 9
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page10 of 32

1

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2 24. Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), and
3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (b)(2) and (3), to pursue claims for damages, injunctive and declaratory
4

5 relief on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated. The proposed class

6 consists of all persons who were arrested in the mass arrest that occurred on the evening

7 of November 5, 2010, in the vicinity of 61h Avenue and East 17th Street, Oakland,
8 California, and who were issued citations for violation of Penal Code section 408, but as
9
10 of the date of filing this Complaint, never charged with any crime.

11

25. This case satisfies the prerequisites of a Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) class action.

12

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

13 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that approximately 150 persons
14

15 were arrested. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all of the arrestees.

16

27. The named plaintiffs' claims that their First, Fourth and Fourteenth

17 Amendment rights and their state law and common law rights against false arrest and

18 false imprisonment were violated raise common questions of law and fact.

19

20

28. By encircling and arresting all of the demonstrators, as well as observers,

21 and bystanders who happened to be in the area, without probable cause or lawful

22 justification, and without any warning or opportunity to disperse, defendants acted on
23 grounds generally applicable to the class.
24 29. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
25
26 The claims of the class members arise from the actions that resulted in damages to the

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10
28

... ..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page11 of 32

1 class representatives and are based on the same legal theories.
2 30. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
3 of the class because they were subject to the unlawful law enforcement conduct
4
5 complained of herein, and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. In

6 addition, plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in litigating federal civil rights cases and

7
class actions.
8 31. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally
9
10 applicable to the class, and injunctive and declaratory relief for the class as a whole is

11 appropriate.

12

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

13 would create a risk of inconsistent or incompatible standards of conduct for the
14

15 defendants, thereby making a class action the superior method of adjudicating the

16 controversy.

17

VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS

18 33. On New Years Day, 2009, BART officer Johannes Mehserle shot Oscar
19
20 Grant, an unarmed transit user, in the back, killing him. The shocking murder was

21 captured on video and cell phone cameras by multiple witnesses and viewed by hundreds

22 of thousands of people on the internet. This lead to intense public outrage, including
23 demonstrations, and also engendered a diverse community-based "Justice for Oscar
24 Grant" movement seeking to end BART and Oakland Police violence and racial profiling.
25
26 More than 100 people were arrested in demonstrations during January, 2009, most of

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT II
28

·.. •·

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page12 of 32

1 whom had done nothing wrong and were never charged with any criminal activity, yet
2 were held in the Alameda County Jail for excessive periods of time.
3 34. On July 8, 2010, Johannes Mehserle was acquitted of murder and convicted
4
5 only of involuntary manslaughter. A large demonstration took place in downtown

6 Oakland. Police used force and threat of force against the lawful demonstrators, blocking

7 their path, beating people with batons, and again arresting many peaceable political
8 demonstrators. As had occurred in January, 2009, people of color bore the brunt of the
9
10 brutality, and many arrestees who had done nothing wrong, and were never charged with

11 any crime, were held for long periods of time under inhumane conditions in the Alameda

12 County Jail.
13 35. On November 5, 2010, Mehserle received a minimal sentence, prompting
14
15 another demonstration. The sentencing date was known well in advance and the Oakland

16 Police Department had planned for the event, calling in numerous outside agencies for

17 mutual aid. The November 5th demonstration was considerably smaller than prior Oscar

18 Grant demonstrations.
19

20

36. After a planned rally downtown, at about 6 pm, a smaller number of

21 demonstrators began marching southeast on 14th Street and then on 1Oth Street, toward the

22 Fruitvale BART station, where the Grant shooting had occurred.
23
37. On 1Oth Street between Oak Street and 2nd Avenue, the police erected a 24
police line, blocking the marchers' passage. Another police formation appeared to be 25
26 coming in from behind the march. The police did not give any orders or announcements

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 12
28

..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page13 of 32

1 telling the marchers where to go or what to do. To avoid crossing the police lines, many
2 of the demonstrators were forced to go northeast through a park. Approximately 150
3 people ended up continuing their march southeast on International Boulevard. The police
4
5 then again erected police lines and forced the march to turn off International Boulevard

6 into a poorly lit residential area.

7

38. The Oakland Police and other law enforcement agencies forced and herded

8 the approximately 150 class members into the 1700 block of 61h Avenue and and erected
9

10 additional police lines, surrounding the class members with riot-clad officers displaying

11 guns and batons. The police used force and threat of force to prevent any of the

12 peaceable protestors from leaving the area.
13 39. Class members asked to be allowed to disperse, and asked to speak with a
14
15 commanding officer, but the police did not respond.

16

40. The area within the police lines became a detention zone within which

17 scores of demonstrators, as well as observers and bystanders, were thus seized and 18
arrested within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution without 19
20 probable cause .

21

41. After detaining the class members for about one and one-half hours on the

22
street, without making any announcements or giving any orders or information, at about 23

24 7:40p.m. the police gave the following announcement:

25

"This has been declared a crime scene. lfyou are media we are asking

26

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 13
28

..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page14 of 32

1

you to step out now or you will also be arrested. Ifyou are with the press

2
you need to step out immediately or you will be arrested. This is declared
3
an unlawful assembly and you are all under arrest. This has been
4

5

declared a crime scene and you're all under arrest... a crime scene.

6

You're all under arrest.... Do not resist arrest. Obey the orders the

7
officers will give you and you will not be hurt."
8

9

42. Daniel Spalding identified himself as a National Lawyers Guild legal

10 observer and asked to be allowed to leave, but was arrested. Other class members

11 including neighborhood residents and persons with medical conditions also asked to be
12 allowed to leave, but only news media personnel were allowed out of the containment.
13

14

43. After detaining the class members without probable cause or lawful

15 justification for approximately one and a half hours in the street in the growing cold and 16
darkness, defendants restrained each of the class members with plastic handcuffs, and 17
18 loaded them onto buses and vans.

19

44. Following the hour and a half seizure and detention on the street,

20 defendants held class members for many hours in buses with their hands handcuffed
21

22 behind their backs. While the class members were on the buses defendants denied them

23 access to toilet facilities. Many of the class members forced to urinate on the floor of the
24 bus where they were sitting or standing, in their clothing unless they were able to free
25 26 their hands in order to remove clothing. As a result, they suffered discomfort,

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page15 of 32

1 embarrassment and humiliation. Many of the class members also suffered pain,
2 discomfort and injury as a result of having their hands tied behind their backs for an
3 4 extended period of time and from overly tight plastic "flex-cuffs". Defendants refused to

5 loosen or remove the handcuffs until the class members arrived at the jail and/or were

6 through the booking process, late that night or in the early morning.
7
45. The plaintiffs and almost all of the approximately 150 class members were 8
9 taken to Alameda County North County Jail. There, the women were ordered to submit to

10 a pregnancy test and ordered to urinate into a cup. If a class member tried to decline the
11 pregnancy test, she was threatened with being separated from the group and transferred to
12
13 Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, CA, where she would be held for a longer period of time. The

14 women class members were embarrassed and humiliated by the forced urination and

15 pregnancy testing.
16

17

46. A handful of class members were imprisoned at Alameda County Santa Rita

18 Jail rather than North County Jail.
19 47. All of the plaintiffs and class members incarcerated at North County Jail
20 were detained overnight in holding cells lacking cots or other sleeping surfaces, many of
21

22 which were so crowded that there was not even room for everyone to lie down on the

23 floor. The class members incarcerated at North County also lacked adequate sanitation, 24
food, water, medications, and medical care. They were subjected to physical and mental 25
26 abuse and to other inhumane and unreasonable conditions of confinement which caused

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 15
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page16 of 32

1 them to suffer pain, discomfort, distress, and injury.
2 48. Prior to being released from the Alameda County Jail, defendants
3
4 wrongfully forced some of the class members to provide buccal swab DNA samples.

5 This was done despite the fact that the custodial arrests were based on the allegation of a

6 non-violent misdemeanor: participating in an unlawful assembly. Similarly as with the
7
pregnancy tests, class members were threatened with extended incarceration at Santa Rita
8

9 if they refused to provide DNA.

10

49. All class members imprisoned at North County Jail were held there for

11
approximately 18-24 hours and then released with a citation for a single violation of Penal 12

13 Code section 408, participating in a rout or unlawful assembly. None of the class

14 members were ever charged with rout/ unlawful assembly, or any crime related to the

15 mass arrest.
16

17

50. In 2004, the Oakland Police Department adopted a comprehensive new

18 Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy, in settlement of plaintiffs' claims for
19 injunctive relief in Coles, et al. v. City of Oakland and Local 10, International Longshore
20 and Warehouse Union, et al. v. City of Oakland, Nos. C03-2961 and 2962 TEH, which
21

22 litigation arose from Oakland Police shootings of peaceful demonstrators and

23 longshoremen with wooden bullets and other "less lethal" projectiles during an antiwar 24
demonstration. The Policy was incorporated into the Stipulation and Order approving the 25
26 class settlement on December 24, 2004. The Policy was made into an OPD Training

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 16
28

·.•

•,

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page17 of 32

1 Bulletin and all members of OPD were required to be trained on the Policy on an ongoing

2 basis.
3

4

51.

The police actions on November 5, 2010, violated numerous provisions of

5 the OPD Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy, including, but not limited to,~ 8(F),

6 which specifies the requirements and procedure for declaring an unlawful assembly, and
7
when a mass arrest may be carried out pursuant to a valid unlawful assembly declaration:
8

9

F. When an unlawful assembly may be declared:

10

1. The definition of an unlawful assembly has been set forth in Penal

11
Code Section 407 and interpreted by court decisions. The terms 12

13

"boisterous" and "tumultuous" as written in Penal Code Section 407 have

14

been interpreted as "conduct that poses a clear and present danger of

15 imminent violence", or when the demonstration or crowd event is for the
16

17

purpose of committing a criminal act. The police may not disperse a

18

demonstration or crowd event before demonstrators have acted illegally or

19 before the demonstrators pose a clear and present danger of imminent

20

21

violence.

22

2. The mere failure to obtain a permit, such as a parade permit or

23

sound permit, is not a sufficient basis to declare an unlawful assembly.

24 There must be criminal activity, or a clear and present danger of imminent
25

26

violence.

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 17
28

•

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page18 of 32

1

3. The fact that some of the demonstrators or organizing groups have

2 engaged in violent or unlawful acts on prior occasions or demonstrations is

3

4

not grounds for declaring an assembly unlawful.

5

4. The police may not disperse a demonstration or crowd event without

6

first validly declaring it an unlawful assembly under state law.

7

5. Unless emergency circumstances prevent negotiation, crowd 8

9

dispersal techniques shall not be initiated until after attempts have been

10

made through contacts with the police liaisons and demonstration or crowd

11
event leaders to negotiate a resolution of the situation so that the unlawful 12

13

activity will cease and the First Amendment activity can continue.

14

6. If after a crowd disperses pursuant to a declaration of unlawful

15 assembly and subsequently participants assemble at a different geographic
16

17

location where the participants are engaged in non-violent and lawful First

18

Amendment activity, such an assembly cannot be dispersed unless it has

19 been determined that it is an unlawful assembly and the required official

20

21

declaration has been adequately given.

22

G. Declaration ofunlawful assembly:

23

1. When the only violation present is unlawful assembly, the crowd

24 should be given an opportunity to disperse rather than face arrest. Crowd
25

26

dispersal techniques shall not be initiated until after there have been

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 18
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page19 of 32

1

repeated announcements to the crowd asking members of the crowd to

2
voluntarily disperse and informing them that if they do not disperse, they

3

4

will be subject to arrest. These announcements must be made using

5

adequate sound amplification equipment, and in a manner that will ensure

6 that they are audible over a sufficient area. Announcements must be made
7 from different locations when the demonstration is large and noisy. The
8

9

dispersal orders should be repeated after commencement ofthe dispersal

10

operation so that persons not present at the original broadcast will

11
understand that they must leave the area. The announcements shall also 12

13

specify adequate egress or escape routes. Whenever possible, a minimum

14

oftwolescape/egress routes shall be identified and announced. It is the

15 responsibility ofthe on-scene OPD commanders to ensure that all such
16

17

announcements are made in such a way that they are clearly audible to the

18

crowd.

19 2. Unless there is an immediate risk to public safety, or significant

20

21

property damage is occurring, sufficient time will be allowed for a crowd to

22

comply with police commands before action is taken.

23

3. Dispersal orders should be given in English and in other languages

24

that are appropriate for the audience. 25

26

4. The Incident Commander should ensure that the name of the

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 19
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page20 of 32

1

individual making the dispersal order and the date/time each order was

2 given is recorded.
3

4

5. Dispersal orders should not be given until officers are in position to

5

support/direct crowd movement.

6

6. Personnel shall use the following Departmental dispersal order:

7

I am (rank/name), a peace officerfor the City of Oakland. I hereby declare 8

9

this to be an unlawful assembly, and in the name of the people of the State

10

of California, command all those assembled at _ _ _ _ _ _ to

11
immediately leave. Ifyou do not do so, you may be arrested or subject to 12

13

other police action. Section 409 of the Penal Code prohibits remaining

14

present at an unlawful assembly. Ifyou remain in the area just described,

15 regardless ofyour purpose, you will be in violation of Section 409. The
16

17

following routes of dispersal are available (routes). You have _ __

18

minutes to leave. Ifyou refuse to move, you will be arrested.

19 When a command decision is made to employ crowd dispersal

20

21

techniques, attempts to obtain voluntary compliance through

22

announcements and attempts to obtain cooperation through negotiation

23

shall both be continued. At any point at which a crowd is dispersing,

24

whether as a reaction to police dispersal techniques, through voluntary 25

26

compliance or as a result of discussion or negotiation with crowd leaders,

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 20
28

.. •

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page21 of 32

1

OPD dispersal techniques shall be suspended and the crowd shall be

2 allowed to disperse voluntarily. This does not preclude a command

3

4

decision by OPD to reinstate dispersal techniques if crowd compliance

5

ceases.

6

H. If negotiation and verbal announcements to disperse do not result in

7

voluntary movement of the crowd, then officers may employ additional
8

9

crowd dispersal techniques, but only after orders from the Incident

10

Commander or designated supervisory officials. The permissible

11
techniques to disperse or control a non-compliant crowd, include all ofthe 12

13

following as described and limited below, and not in any specific order of

14

use:

15 1. Display ofpolice officers including motorcycles, police vehicles and
16

17

mobile field forces (forceful presence);

18

2. Encirclement of the crowd and multiple simultaneous arrest;

19 3. Police formations which advance towards the crowd to cause

20

21

movement ofthe crowd and the use of the baton;

22

4. Non aerosol crowd control chemical agents.

23

5. Sound and light diversionary and other distraction devices

24

(non-pellet) including those containing optional chemical agents. 25

26

I. All of these crowd dispersal techniques shall be used consistent with

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 21
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page22 of 32

1

the department policy of using the minimal police intervention needed to

2 address a crowd management or control issue.

3

4

52. The OPD Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy instructs OPD

5 members that probable cause is required for each individual arrest. Section IX(A)(5)

6 instructs that "Individuals may not be arrested based on their association with a crowd in
7
which unlawful activity has occurred. There must be probable cause for each individual 8
9 arrest. This means the officer must have objective facts based on his own knowledge, or

10 information given him by other officers, sufficient to believe that each specific individual
11 being arrested committed the offense. Thus, the only proper basis for a multiple
12
13 simultaneous arrest of all the individuals encircled at a demonstration is failure to

14 disperse (Pen. Code §409), where the dispersal was properly ordered based on the
15 existence of an unlawful assembly and adequate notice and opportunity to disperse has
16
17 been given. "

18

53. The OPD Crowd Management/ Crowd Control Policy also makes clear to

19 OPD members that individuals arrested for misdemeanors, like the plaintiff class
20 21 members, are to be released with a citation, in compliance with California Penal Code

22 section 853 .6, and not held in jail, unless one of the exceptions specified in the statute

23 applies. (~X.) 24
54. On information and belief, prior to and during this demonstration and the 25
26 prior Oscar Grant I Mehserle demonstrations, defendants gathered, maintained and
27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 22
28

•.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page23 of 32

1 disseminated documents, information and intelligence concerning the demonstrations,
2 including, but not limited to, information about the constitutionally protected speech and
3 4 associational activities of individuals and organizations involved in the Justice for Oscar

5 Grant movement. Defendants' actions in gathering, maintaining and disseminating

6 documents, information and intelligence concerning the constitutionally protected speech
7
and associational activities of the plaintiff class was overbroad, unnecessary and 8

9 unjustified by any legitimate law enforcement purpose.

10

VII. REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

11
55. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of the plaintiffs' 12

13 constitutional and lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies,

14 directives, practices, acts and omissions of authorized policy makers of the defendants
15 CITY OF OAKLAND and ALAMEDA COUNTY, including defendants BATTS,
16
17 AHERN and other supervisory officials ofthe OPD, the City of Oakland, and the

18 Alameda County Sheriff's Department, who encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned,
19 and ratified the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of herein. Said
20 21 customs, policies and practices include, but are not limited to the use of mass arrests

22 without probable cause and pre-charging imprisonment under inhumane conditions to

23 disrupt and deter demonstrators and First Amendment protected activity; the failure to 24
maintain adequate policies, and to adequately train, supervise and control OPD officers 25
26 and Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies concerning the policing of demonstrations and

27
CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 23
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page24 of 32

1 other expressive activities with respect to crowd control, crowd dispersal and the

2 constitutional and statutory limitations on arrests and imprisonment.

3

4

56. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described

5 herein, the named individual plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional, statutory and

6 legal rights as stated below, and have suffered general and special damages, including but
7
not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,
8
9 fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other damages in an

10 amount according to proof. 11
57. Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done 12
13 with conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for plaintiffs' rights.

14

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

15 have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to plaintiffs, including but
16

17 not limited to violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have no

18 plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. The
19 plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional rights of
20 21 freedom of speech and association by engaging in demonstrations and expressive
22 activities in the City of Oakland and Alameda County. Defendants' conduct described
23 herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs with respect to their
24
exercise now and in the future of these constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek 25
26 injunctive relief from this court, to ensure that plaintiffs and persons similarly situated
27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 24
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page25 of 32
1 will not suffer violations of their rights from defendants' illegal and unconstitutional 2
policies, customs and practices as described herein. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief 3 4 in the form of an order requiring that defendants seal and destroy any records derived 5 from plaintiffs' arrests, including fingerprints, photographs, and other identification and 6 descriptive information, and all information, and biological samples and information
7
obtained from such biological samples collected from the plaintiff class, and identify to
8
9 the plaintiff class all entities and agencies to which such information has been 10 disseminated; and that all such disseminated records be collected and destroyed.
11
59. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs and defendants in that 12 13 plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices and conduct of defendants alleged herein are 14 unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas plaintiffs are informed and believe that 15
defendants contend that said policies, practices and conduct are lawful and constitutional. 16 17 Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 25 28

. ..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page26 of 32

1

VIII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3

Violation Of First Amendment To The United States Constitution

4

(42 u.s.c. § 1983)

5

60. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

6
this complaint.
7
61. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' rights to freedom
8

9 of speech and association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

10

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Violation Of Fourth Amendment To United States Constitution

(42 u.s.c. § 1983)

12

13

62. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

14 this complaint.
15 63. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' rights to be free
16
17 from unreasonable seizures and excessive and/or arbitrary force and/or arrest and/or

18 imprisonment without reasonable or probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the

19 United States Constitution.

20

21

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Violation Of Fourteenth Amendment To United States Constitution

(42 u.s.c. § 1983)
23

2 4

64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

25 this complaint. 26
27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 26
28

•

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page27 of 32

1

65. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' right to not be

2
deprived of liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
3
4 United States Constitution.

5

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Fourteenth Amendment To United States Constitution

6

(42 u.s.c. § 1983)

7

66. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of
8

9 this complaint.

10

67. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' rights to equal

11
protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 12

13

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

False Arrest and False Imprisonment

14

15

68. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

16 this complaint.
17 69. Plaintiffs were arrested and imprisoned without reasonable or probable
18 19 cause to believe that they committed any crime.

20

70. Defendants intentionally imprisoning the class in the Alameda County Jail

21 in violation of Penal Code section 853 .6, and for an unreasonably prolonged period of
22 time and under unreasonably inhumane conditions.
23

24

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of California Civil Code § 51.7 25

26

71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 27
28

. ,,.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page28 of 32

1 this complaint.
2 72. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' right to be free
3 4 from violence and intimidation by threat of violence because of their actual or perceived

5 political affiliation and/or viewpoint, in violation of California Civil Code section 51. 7.

6

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

Violation of California Civil Code§ 52.1

8

73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

9
this complaint. 10

11

74. Defendants' above-described conduct constituted interference, and

12 attempted interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs' peaceable
13 exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
14
15 States and the State of California, in violation of California Civil Code section 52.1.

16

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

California Constitution, Article I, §1

18

75. The above-described acts of defendants, including, but not limited to, the

19 forced pregnancy and DNA testing and the collecting of information concerning
20 plaintiffs' speech and associational activities, violated plaintiffs' right to privacy under
21

22 article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.

23

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24

Negligence

25

76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of

26

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 28
28

• .

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page29 of 32

1 this complaint. 2
77. Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiffs to ensure that defendants did
3
4 not cause unnecessary or unjustified harm to plaintiffs, and a duty of care to hire, train, 5 supervise and discipline OPD and ACSD officers so as to not cause harm to plaintiffs and 6 to prevent violations of plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory and common law rights.
7
78. The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of
8
9 care defendants owed to the named individual plaintiffs. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 29
28

.. ,.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page30 of 32

1

IX. PRAYER

2 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them,
3 4 as follows:

5

1. For an order certifying the class defined herein pursuant to Federal Rules of

6 Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);
7
2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining defendants from 8
9 engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions complained of above;

10

3. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring defendants to seal and

11
destroy all records derived from this arrest, including all fingerprints, photographs, 12

13 identification and descriptive information, and all biological samples and information

14 obtained from such biological samples collected from the plaintiff class;
15 4. For entry of an order that disclosure be made in writing to plaintiffs and the
16
17 Court as to all entities and agencies to which such material has been disseminated and by

18 whom gathered; and that all records disseminated be collected and sealed, including all
19 copies of such disseminated records that may have been subject to dissemination by
20
21 others;

22

5. For entry of an order declaring the arrests null and void;

23

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

24
violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and 25

26 California;

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 30
28

. ' . ..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page31 of 32

1

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

2 state constitutional and statutory rights, pain and suffering, all to be determined according
3
4 to proof;

5

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

6 proof as to the individual defendants;
7 9. For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code
8

9 section 52(b) to be determined according to proof;

10

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

11
section 52(b) and section 52.1 (h), and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 12

13

11 For costs of suit;

14

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

15 13. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
16

17 Dated: June 11, 2011

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD RACHEL LEDERMAN

18

CAROL SOBEL

19

BOBBIE STEIN

R. MICHAEL FLYNN

20

MARA VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD

21

CARL MESSINEO

22 23

(i:aCiil/ PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND ~17<-------

24

By: RACHEL LEDERMAN

Attorney for Plaintiffs 25

26

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 31
28

..

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1 Filed06/13/11 Page32 of 32

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
3
4 Dated: June 11, 2011

5

By: RACHEL LEDERMAN

Attorney for Plaintiffs
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 32
28

0: [£, Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document1-1 Filed06/13/11 Plaige-1CoVf -1 2CO~'I-

~ JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) (CAND Rev 111 0)

CIVIL COVER SHEET .._,

A 17 rz._ £c_r::.

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of courl This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE TWO OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

DANIEL SPALDING, et at., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

CITY OF OAKLAND, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, OAKLAND POLICE CHIEF ANTHONY BATIS, et al.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)

RACHEL LEDERMAN
558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 282-9300. Additional attorneys on attachment.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in one Box for Plaintiff

0 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

Federal QuestiOn

----

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

b --.._

Citizen of This State

PTF DEF 0 1 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place

PTF 0 4

DEF 0 4

Government Not a Partv\

of Business In This State

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Jll)

O s Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place

0

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Ptacean"X"inOneBoxOnty)

CONTRACT
Cl I 10 Insurance Cl 120 Marine Cl 130 Miller Act CJ 140 Negotiable Instrument Cl 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
Cl 151 Medicare Act Cl 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (Excl Veterans)
C l 153 Recovery of Overpayment
ofVeteran's Benefits
Cl 160 Stockholders' Suits Cl I90 Other Contract Cl 195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
Cl 210 Land Condemnation Cl 220 Foreclosure Cl 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment Cl 240 Torts to Land Cl 245 Tort Product Liability Cl 290 All Other Real Property

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY

10 Airplane

CJ362 Personal Injury-

15 Airplane Product

Med. Malpractice

Liability

CJ365 Personal Injury-

20 Assault, Libel &

Product Liability

Slander 30 Federal Employers'
Liability

368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

40 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

CJ370 Other Fraud

371 Truth in Lending

380 Other Personal Property Damage

385 Property Damage

Product Liability

PRISONER PETITIONS
51 0 Motions to Vacate Sentence
Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

610 Agriculture 620 Other Food & Drug 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881 630 Liquor Laws 640 R.R. & Truck 650 Airline Regs. 660 Occupational
Safety/Health 690 Other
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting
& Disclosure Act 740 Railway Labor Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
Security Act
IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalizati:>n Applicati>n 463 Habeas Corpus -
Alien Detainee 465 Other Immigration
Acti>ns

BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC !58 423 Withdrawal
28 usc 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA(l395ft) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party
26 usc 7609

06

06

OTHER STATUTES
400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service
850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange
875 Customer Challenge
12 usc 3410
890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information
Act 900Appeal ofF ee
Determination Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

e an "X" in One Box Only)

2 Removed from Cl 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

CJ4 Reinstated or Reopened

Transferred from
Cl 5 another district
(specify)

CJ6 Multidistrict Litigation

Appeal to District CJ7 Judge from
Magistrate Jud ment

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 u.s.c. § 1983

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

ful mass arrest and imprisonment of political protestors.

DEMAND $ Injunction, damages

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
[i] YesCI No

DEUREKA

 
 1

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

5

6 DANIEL SPALDING, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

v.

9 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

10

Defendants.

NO. C11-2867 TEH ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

12

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ joint motion for preliminary

13 approval of the class action settlement agreement (“Agreement”), which is attached as

14 Exhibit 1 to the motion papers filed on May 22, 2013. The time for opposing the motion has

15 passed, and no oppositions have been filed. After carefully considering the written record,

16 the Court is satisfied that the proposed settlement meets the requirements for preliminary

17 approval and VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 1, 2013, and the case management

18 conference scheduled for July 22, 2013. With good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

19 ORDERED that:

20

1. Capitalized terms used in this order shall have the same meaning as set forth in

21 the Agreement.

22

2. The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, adequate, reasonable, and

23 within the range of possible approval, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval

24 Hearing. It appears that the Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and is not the product

25 of collusion.

26

3. The Court will retain discretion to appoint Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler or

27 any other individual to handle disputes relating to the interpretation, implementation, and

28 enforcement of the Agreement. The Court may also itself resolve any such disputes.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

4. The form of Notice and Claim Form attached as Exhibit 2 to the motion is

2 approved. On or before June 21, 2013, Class Counsel shall provide notice to the class by

3 email and postal mail to those Class Members whose contact information is known to Class

4 Counsel. Class Counsel shall also post the Notice and Claim Form on the class website and

5 publicize the link to the Notice and Claim Form via social media.

6

5. Class Counsel shall use reasonable means, including emails and telephone calls

7 where contact information is known to counsel, to contact any Class Members who have not

8 submitted a Claim Form by July 22, 2013.

9

6. The Bar Date – i.e., the date by which Claim Forms must be postmarked or

10 delivered by email, fax, or in person to be considered for payment – shall be August 5, 2013.

11

7. Class Members may object to the Agreement by submitting a written objection

12 to this Court, with a copy to Class Counsel, on or before August 5, 2013. Objections will be

13 filed in the public record. If a Class Member wishes to appear at the Final Approval Hearing

14 to object to the settlement, he or she should indicate such intent in the written objection.

15

8. Counsel for the Parties shall file a joint statement on or before August 19,

16 2013, indicating the number of claims received and responding to any written objections

17 submitted by Class Members.

18

9. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on September 9, 2013, at

19 10:00 AM. The Court may continue the date of the Final Approval Hearing without further

20 notice to Class Members.

21

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

24 Dated: 06/13/13 25

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

26

27

28

2

 
 Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page1 of 14

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 DANIEL SPALDING, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

vs.

7 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

8

Defendants.

No. C11-02867 TEH (LB)

9

10

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

11

The Parties: Plaintiffs DANIEL SPALDING, KATHARINE LONCKE,

12 DANIELLE LOPEZ GREEN, ADRIAN DRUMMOND-COLE, on behalf of themselves

13 and each Class Member, as defined below; Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND,

14 ANTHONY BATTS, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFF ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS,

15 EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY TORIBIO, DAVID DOWNING, ERSIE JOYNER,

16 MIKE POIRIER, and DARRIN ALLISON (hereafter, “OAKLAND DEFENDANTS”);

17 and Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY AHERN (hereafter,

18 “COUNTY DEFENDANTS”); by and through their respective counsel, agree and

19 stipulate as follows.

20

I. The Litigation

21

On June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting violations of

22 their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their rights under California

23 state law, arising from a mass arrest which occurred on November 5, 2010. The 150

24 Class Members were arrested during a march protesting police misconduct and the

25 sentencing of Johannes Meserhle, the BART officer convicted in the death of Oscar

26 Grant. It is undisputed that the Class Members were not given an order or opportunity to

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 1
28 EXHIBIT 1

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page2 of 14

1 disperse.

2

Following their arrest by the Oakland Police and a period of detention on the

3 street, the 150 Class Members were placed in the custody of the Alameda County Sheriff

4 and detained in buses and other vehicles, and in an Alameda County Jail holding area, for

5 a total of 14 - 24 hours before being released with citations for unlawful assembly. No

6 charges were ever filed against any of the Class Members.

7

Plaintiffs alleged that the arrests and imprisonment violated the OPD Crowd

8 Management / Crowd Control Policy adopted in settlement of Coles v. City of Oakland

9 and Local 10, ILWU, v. City of Oakland, Nos. C03-2961 and 2962 TEH.

10

Plaintiffs requested monetary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and an injunction

11 to restrain defendants from continuing to violate plaintiffs’ rights and the protections for

12 these rights in the Crowd Control Policy; and an order requiring defendants to seal and

13 destroy all records derived from this arrest, and declaring the arrests null and void.

14

On March 23, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

15 (Docket No. 41.) In May, 2012, Plaintiffs’ Counsel disseminated class notice in the

16 manner specified in this Court's May 8, 2012, Order (Docket No. 54.) The class notice

17 specified a deadline to June 20, 2012, for exclusion from the class. No one requested to

18 be excluded from the class.

19

The Parties engaged in preliminary discovery including written discovery, and

20 depositions of two Oakland Police defendants and two Sheriff’s personnel. The Parties

21 then agreed to stay discovery and litigation and engage in settlement discussions.

22

II. The Settlement Process

23

Between June 18, 2012 and the present, the Parties have participated in four all day

24 and two partial day settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, as well

25 as several telephone conferences with Judge Beeler and a separate meeting between

26 plaintiffs’ counsel and the Alameda County defendants. As a result of these extensive

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 2
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page3 of 14

1 settlement negotiations, and with Judge Beeler’s assistance, the Parties have now agreed

2 on a complete settlement of this litigation, the terms of which are set forth below.

3

Plaintiffs and Defendants have taken into account the uncertainty, risks, time and

4 expense inherent in litigation, and have concluded that it is reasonable, desirable and in

5 the public interest that this litigation be settled in the manner and upon the terms and

6 conditions set forth in this Stipulation. Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the

7 settlement as set forth in this Stipulation confers substantial benefits on the Class, and the

8 general public, and that it is fair and reasonable. Based on their evaluation, Plaintiffs and

9 their counsel have determined that the settlement set forth in the Stipulation is in the best

10 interests of the Class.

11

III. The Settlement Agreement and Terms of Stipulation

12

A. Definitions

13

“Effective Date” shall be when the Judgment has become Final as defined below.

14

“Final” means the date on which the Court has entered the Judgment, following

15 submission of this Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Motion to the Court.

16

“Preliminary Approval Motion” means a motion filed with the Court

17 requesting that the Court consider and preliminarily approve the Settlement

18 Agreement.

19

“Final Approval Motion” shall mean a motion filed with the Court requesting

20 that the Court consider and, if it finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable, finally

21 approve the Settlement Agreement.

22

“Final Approval Hearing” means the hearing to be held by the Court to consider

23 and determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation as contained in this

24 Stipulation should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and whether the

25 Judgment should be entered.

26

“Judgment” means the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice to be

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 3
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page4 of 14

1 rendered by the court.

2

“Approved Claim” means a claim submitted no later than the Bar Date by a Class

3 member other than a Representative Plaintiff which is approved by plaintiffs’ counsel.

4

“Bar Date” means that date specified herein by which Claim Forms submitted by

5 Class Members must be delivered or post-marked in order to be considered for payment

6 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement described in this Stipulation.

7

“Class” means the class as defined in the Court’s March 23, 2012, Order granting

8 class certification: “The approximately 150 people who were arrested in the mass arrest

9 on 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets in Oakland on November 5, 2010, and

10 who were never charged with any crime related to this arrest.”

11

“Class Members” means all persons within or encompassed by the definition of the

12 Class.

13

“Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs” means Daniel Spalding, Katharine Loncke,

14 Danielle Lopez Green, and Adrian Drummond-Cole.

15

“Claimants” means Class members who actually file claims pursuant to the

16 procedures set forth in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order.

17

“Class Notice of Settlement Agreement” means the written notice, together with

18 the Publication Notice, which shall include the general terms of the Settlement

19 Agreement, and the date of the Final Approval Hearing. The Class Notice of Settlement

20 shall conform to all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due

21 process, any other applicable law, and shall otherwise be in the manner and form

22 approved by the Court.

23

“Claim Form” means that form which Class Members must submit in order to

24 qualify to participate in the settlement described in this Stipulation.

25

“The Parties” means the parties to this settlement agreement,

26

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 4
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page5 of 14

1 who are the Plaintiffs and the Class, and the Oakland Defendants and County Defendants,

2 defined above.

3

“Court” means the United States District Court for the Northern District of

4 California.

5

“Class Counsel” or “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means the class counsel appointed in the

6 Court’s March 23, 2012, Order granting class certification: Rachel Lederman, Bobbie

7 Stein, R. Michael Flynn, Carol Sobel, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and Carl Messineo.

8

“Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs” means Rachel Lederman.

9

“Class Settlement Fund” means the sum to be paid by the Defendants, totaling

10 $1,025,000, not subject to reversion, which will be funded and distributed as further

11 described in this Agreement.

12

B. Monetary Settlement

13

In consideration of the Release set forth in section III.G. of this Stipulation and the

14 entry of Judgment on the claims of all Class Members, the Defendants will jointly pay the

15 sum of $1,025,000, within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this settlement. Said

16 payment shall include all attorney’s fees and costs and shall be made payable to Rachel

17 Lederman, Attorney Client Trust Account, to be distributed to the Class Representatives,

18 Claimants and Class Counsel by that office as follows:

19

The four Class Representatives shall each receive $9,000;

20

Those Claimants who have submitted Approved Claims shall each receive an equal

21 part of $639,000;

22

Class Counsel shall receive $350,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs, including all

23 costs associated with the administration of the Class Settlement Fund, transmittal and

24 publication of the Class Notice of Settlement Agreement and Claim Forms, review and

25 approval of Claim Forms and payment of Approved Claims.

26

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 5
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page6 of 14

1

C. Non-Monetary Settlement

2

1. Sealing and Destruction of Arrest Records

3

The Parties stipulate to the following and seek the Court's order granting such

4 relief as of the Effective Date:

5

a. All arrest records, police reports, investigative reports, booking information, on

6 line data, or any other documentation or information pertaining to the arrests of the

7 Plaintiffs and Claimants who have submitted Approved Claims in the possession of the

8 Oakland Defendants and County Defendants shall be sealed and destroyed.

9

b. The Parties stipulate that the relief shall be the equivalent of a determination of

10 factual innocence pursuant to California Penal Code section 851.8, and that the

11 procedural requirements of that statute shall be waived, including any time deadlines and

12 notice to the District Attorney.

13

c. The Court shall issue an Order in the names of all of the Plaintiffs and

14 Claimants who have submitted Approved Claims, stating that it is the determination of

15 the Court, pursuant to the stipulation of the Oakland defendants (the arresting agency),

16 that the Plaintiffs and Claimants are factually innocent of the charges for which they were

17 arrested and that they are thereby exonerated. Thereafter, the arrest shall be deemed not

18 to have occurred and the person may answer accordingly any question relating to its

19 occurrence. (See, California Penal Code section 851.8, subd. (f).)

20

d. Destruction of records of arrest pursuant to the Court's order shall be

21 accomplished by permanent obliteration of all entries or notations upon the records

22 pertaining to the arrest, and the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the

23 arrest never occurred. However, where the only entries on the record pertain to the arrest

24 and the record can be destroyed without necessarily affecting the destruction of other

25 records, the document constituting the record shall be physically destroyed. (See, Penal

26 Code section 851.8, subd. (j).)

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 6
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page7 of 14

1

e. Defendants will provide a copy of the Court order to the California Department

2 of Justice, along with a list of all Class Members and advise said agency of the fact that

3 the records of their November 5, 2010 arrests have been rendered obsolete on the basis of

4 a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code 851.8.

5

2. Coles / Local 10 Settlement and Crowd Control Policy

6

The Oakland Defendants will continue to abide by the terms of the Coles / Local

7 10 (C03-2961 and 2962 TEH) settlement stipulation and order dated December 24, 2004,

8 which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein.

9

The parties agree that the meet and confer requirement specified in the Coles /

10 Local 10 settlement stipulation and order at page 5, line 28, through page 6, line 9, will be

11 satisfied if: Before making any material change to the Crowd Control Policy (as set forth

12 in Exhibit A) or the associated Training Bulletin (OPD TB III-G, issued 28 Oct. 2005), or

13 to associated training outlines, the Oakland Police Department and its counsel will meet

14 and confer with representatives of the National Lawyers Guild - SF Bay Area Chapter,

15 and the ACLU of Northern California, in a good faith effort to reach agreement on such

16 changes.

17

All participants will bear their own attorney's fees and costs related to any such

18 meet and confer process.

19

3. Citation and Release Policy - OPD

20

The Oakland Police Department will adopt the following policy regarding Citation

21 and Release of misdemeanor arrestees in instances of multiple simultaneous arrest, and

22 Paragraph VIII of OPD Training Bulletin III-G, Crowd Control, shall be amended

23 accordingly, as follows:

24

A. The OPD will comply with Penal Code section 853.6, and with Department

25 General Order M-7, "Citations for Adult Misdemeanors", III, A-N, by citing and releasing

26 individuals who qualify for such under the Penal Code.

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 7
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page8 of 14

1

B. When it is impractical to cite arrestees at or near the site of the demonstration

2 because of a substantial risk that this procedure would allow the unlawful activity to

3 continue or because of specific geographic factors, OPD may cite and release arrestees

4 from temporary processing stations or police facilities as near the site of the arrest as

5 possible. While detained during the citation and release process, arrestees shall have

6 reasonable access to toilet facilities and to appropriate medical attention.

7

C. No fingerprinting will be done as part of the citation and release process.

8 Arrestees may be instructed to appear for booking prior to or after arraignment.

9 Commanders shall exercise discretion as to whether property searches are necessary.

10 Property of persons who qualify for citation and release will not be confiscated unless it is

11 found to contain contraband. The intention of this policy is to release citation-eligible

12 arrestees as promptly as possible, and to obviate the need to transfer such arrestees to the

13 Sheriff's custody. Persons for whom a valid warrant is confirmed, or who do not produce

14 valid identification or who are otherwise found ineligible for citation will be transferred

15 to the Sheriff's custody.

16

D. An officer seeking to book a misdemeanor arrestee into jail must have an

17 articulable basis to believe that one of the specified statutory exceptions to mandatory cite

18 and release applies to that individual. This basis must be documented in the police report.

19

E. The mere fact that further demonstrations are likely to be held in the near future

20 is not a proper basis to apply subdivision (7) of P.C. 853.6 ("reasonable likelihood that the

21 offense may continue or resume") to individual demonstrators.

22

F. There must be an articulable objective basis to believe that, if cited out, those

23 specific indi-viduals would continue the same illegal activity for which they were

24 arrested.

25

G. Individuals may not be booked into jail on the sole basis of a felony charge

26 consisting of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor.

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 8
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page9 of 14

1.

4. Citation and Release Policy - Alameda County

2

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office will adopt a new policy and procedure to

3 expedite the citation and release of citation-eligible persons who are transferred to the

4 Sheriff’s custody as the result of mass arrest, as defined in the new policy, Detention and

5 Corrections Policy and Procedure No. 11.65, attached hereto as Exhibit B and

6 incorporated herein by this reference. The new policy and procedure is specifically

7 intended to ensure the prompt release of those mass arrestees who are eligible for citation

8 and release under Penal Code section 853.6, and to protect their health and comfort

9 during the time they are temporarily detained.

10

As such, mass arrestees will have access to toilet facilities at all times, except

11 while actually in transit from the arrest site to the jail. Handcuffs will be checked before

12 arrestees are transported to the jail and arrestees will not be accepted for transport unless

13 a Deputy has verified that the handcuffs are properly applied and not likely to cause injury

14 or undue discomfort. Handcuffs will be removed at the jail facility as soon as it is safe to

15 do so without jeopardizing safety and security. Each vehicle used to transport mass

16 arrestees to jail shall be equipped with a flexcuff cutter to be used in the case of an

17 emergency. Mass arrestees who are eligible for citation and release and who provide a

18 valid California driver’s license or identification card will not be fingerprinted prior to

19 citation and release.

20

D. Preliminary Approval

21

As soon as possible, and in no event more than five days, after execution of this

22 Stipulation, the Parties shall jointly submit the Stipulation together with its Exhibits to

23 the Court and shall jointly apply for entry of a Preliminary Approval Order substantially

24 in the form set forth in Exhibit C, requesting, inter alia, the preliminary approval of the

25 Settlement set forth in this Stipulation, and approval/ dissemination of Class Notice of the

26 Settlement and the proposed Claim Form.

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 9
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page10 of 14

1

E. Class Notice of the Settlement and Claim Form

2

After Notice of Settlement Agreement, the Class Members shall have 21 days to

3 file a Claim Form, or to object to the Settlement Agreement following the procedure set

4 forth in the Notice.

5

F. Final Approval

6

A Final Approval Hearing shall be set no less than 30 days after the Court

7 issues its Preliminary Approval Order. The parties jointly request that, at the Final

8 Approval Hearing, the Court approve the settlement of the Litigation and enter Judgment

9 in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit D.

10

G. Releases and Bar Order

11

1. Upon the Effective Date, as defined above, the Parties shall be

12 deemed to have, and shall have, fully, finally, and forever waived, released, relinquished,

13 discharged, and dismissed all claims arising from the events alleged in Plaintiffs’

14 Complaint.

15

2. Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs and Class Members shall be forever

16 barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting or continuing to prosecute

17 any action or other proceeding in any court oflaw or equity, arbitration tribunal, or

18 administrative forum, asserting any claims arising from the events alleged in Plaintiffs’

19 Complaint.

20

3. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants shall be deemed to

21 have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released,

22 relinquished, and discharged Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel from all claims (including

23 Unknown Claims) arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the institution,

24 prosecution, assertion, settlement or resolution of the Litigation or the determination

25 regarding approval or disapproval of any claim submitted.

26

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 10
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page11 of 14

1

H. Waiver and Covenant Not to Sue

2

Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants shall be deemed to have, and

3 shall have, fully, finally, and forever waived, released, and relinquished any claim for

4 malicious prosecution in connection with the Litigation. Each such Defendant covenants

5 that he or she will not institute any claim, lawsuit, arbitration, or proceeding of any nature

6 against Plaintiffs, any Class Member, or Plaintiffs' Counsel for any act or omission in

7 connection with this Litigation.

8

I. Conditions of Settlement, Effect of Disapproval

9

This Settlement is subject to the following conditions:

10

1. This Settlement is subject to the approval of the Court as provided in

11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

12

2. If the Stipulation is not approved by the Court, or otherwise fails to become

13 effective in accordance with its terms and provisions, the terms and provisions of this

14 Stipulation, with the exception of this section, shall have no further force and effect with

15 respect to the Parties and neither this Stipulation nor any submission by any party in

16 connection with the Motion(s) for Preliminary or Final Approval or Appeal therefrom, or

17 any related motions or proceedings, may be used in this Litigation or in any other

18 proceeding for any purpose, and any judgment or order entered by the Court in

19 accordance with the terms of this Stipulation shall be treated as vacated, nunc pro tunc.

20

J. Miscellaneous Provisions

21

1. The Parties (a) acknowledge that it is their intent to consummate the Settlement

22 set forth in this Stipulation, and (b) agree to cooperate to the extent reasonably necessary

23 to effectuate and implement all terms and conditions of the Stipulation and to exercise

24 their best efforts to accomplish and effectuate the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

25

2. The Parties intend this settlement to be a final and complete resolution of all

26 disputes between them with respect to the Litigation. The settlement compromises claims

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 11
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page12 of 14

1 which are contested and shall not be deemed an admission by any Party as to the merits of

2 any claim or defense. The Parties agree that the terms of the settlement were negotiated in

3 good faith by the Parties, and reflect a settlement that was reached voluntarily after

4 consultation with competent legal counsel and with the assistance of Judge Beeler.

5

3. All of the exhibits to this Stipulation are material and integral parts hereof and

6 are fully incorporated herein by this reference.

7

4. The Stipulation and the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement

8 among the parties hereto and no representations, warranties or inducements have been

9 made to any party concerning the Stipulation or its exhibits other than the representations,

10 warranties, and covenants contained and memorialized in such documents.

11

5. This Stipulation may be amended or modified only by a written instrument

12 signed by or on behalf of all Parties. Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, is

13 expressly authorized by the Plaintiffs to take all appropriate action required or permitted

14 to be taken by the Class pursuant to the Stipulation to effectuate its terms and also is

15 expressly authorized to enter into any modifications or amendments to the Stipulation on

16 behalf of the Class which she deems appropriate.

17

6. Each attorney or other person executing the Stipulation or any of its exhibits on

18 behalf of any Party hereto hereby warrants that such person has the full authority to do

19 so.

20

7. The Stipulation shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors

21 and assigns of the Parties hereto.

22

8. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter after these claims are dismissed

23 to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement for four years from the Effective Date,

24 with the proviso that within that four year time period if there is a material breach of the

25 terms of this Settlement Agreement any Party may move the court to extend the time for

26 up to an additional three years. The Parties further request that the Court appoint

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 12
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page13 of 14

1 Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for resolution of any disputes, to facilitate the meet and

2 confer process referenced in paragraph III.C.2, and to issue all appropriate orders

3 concerning this Settlement Agreement and the implementation and enforcement thereof.

4

9. This Settlement Agreement was drafted with substantial review and input by all

5 Parties and their counsel, and no reliance was placed on any representations other than

6 those contained herein. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall be

7 construed by its own terms, and not by referring to, or considering, the terms of any other

8 settlement, and not by any presumption against the drafter.

9

NOW, THEREFORE, the foregoing terms are hereby STIPULATED AND

10 AGREED, by and among the Parties, subject to approval of the Court pursuant to Rule

11 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

13 DATED: May 16, 2013 14

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Professional Corporation

15

By: /S/__________________________

16

GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendants

17

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY AHERN

18 DATED: May 16, 2013
19

BARBARA J. PARKER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF OAKLAND

20

21

By: /S/___________________________

22

RANDOLPH W. HALL

Attorneys for Defendants

23

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

24 DATED: May 16, 2013
25
26

RACHEL LEDERMAN CAROL SOBEL BOBBIE STEIN R. MICHAEL FLYNN

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 13
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-1 Filed05/22/13 Page14 of 14

1

MARA VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD

CARL MESSINEO

2

PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND

3

4

By: /S/___________________________

5

RACHEL LEDERMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, CASE NO. C11-02867 TEH p. 14
28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
If you were arrested by the Oakland Police on November 5, 2010, in connection with the Mehserle sentencing demonstration, and you were not charged with a crime, a class action settlement may provide you with
approximately $4,400 and an order of exoneration.
A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
• A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the illegality of the mass arrest and detention of approximately 150 people on November 5, 2010, in connection with a demonstration protesting the sentence given Johannes Mehserle, the ex-BART officer who shot Oscar Grant.
• The Class consists of the approximately 150 people who were arrested in the mass arrest on 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets in Oakland on November 5, 2010, and who were never charged with any crime related to this arrest.
• The proposed settlement will provide each Class member with approximately $4,400 in compensation. Attorney’s fees and costs will be paid separately and will not be deducted from this amount. Class members will be provided with an order of exoneration and their arrest records will be sealed and destroyed. In addition, the settlement provides that OPD will follow a detailed Crowd Control Policy intended to ensure constitutional policing of demonstrations and other crowd events, and that the OPD and Sheriff will change their citation and release procedures for mass arrests to prevent similar lengthy detentions in the future. The settlement terms are further described on the following pages.
• Your legal rights are affected whether you act, or don’t act. Strict deadlines will apply.

Your Legal Rights and Options in this Settlement:

Submit a Claim Form by _____
Object

The only way to get a payment and to have your arrest records sealed and destroyed and receive an order of exoneration.
Write to the Court about why you don’t like the settlement.

Go to a Hearing

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement.

Do Nothing

Get no payment. Get no order of exoneration. Your arrest record will not be sealed and destroyed. Give up rights.

EXHIBIT 2

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page2 of 8

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
BASIC INFORMATION 1. Why did I get this notice? 2. What is this lawsuit about? 3. What is a class action and who is involved? 4. Has the Court decided who is right? 5. When Can I Expect to Receive Money?
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT? 6. Am I part of this Settlement? 7. What if I was charged with a crime? 8. What if I was arrested at another demonstration?
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS –WHAT YOU GET 9. What does the Settlement provide in terms of money? 10. What does the Settlement provide in terms of my arrest record? 11. How will the Settlement prevent future unlawful police conduct?
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? 12 What must I do to obtain benefits from the Settlement? 13. How do I object to the Settlement? 14. Do I have to come to court? 15. What happens if I do nothing at all?
GETTING MORE INFORMATION 16. Are more details available?
CLAIM FORM

Page 3
Page 4 Page 4
Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 Page 8

QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page3 of 8
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this notice?
You were identified in police records as having been subject to the mass arrest at issue in this class action, or you may have contacted the National Lawyers Guild or Class Counsel, Rachel Lederman. You should have received an earlier notice of your options and rights in May, 2012, when the Court allowed, or “certified,” this lawsuit to go forward as a class action.
This notice is to inform you of a settlement negotiated by the Plaintiffs and Defendants, which has been preliminarily approved by the Court. You have the right to file a claim, or to object to the settlement, before the Court gives final approval.
Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is overseeing this class action. The lawsuit is known as Spalding, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Civil Action No. CV-11-02867 TEH. On _______________, the Court will decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
This lawsuit asserts that the mass arrest by the Oakland Police on 6th Avenue on Friday evening, November 5, 2010, during the Mehserle sentencing demonstration, was unlawful; and that the subsequent 14 – 24 hour detention of Class members by OPD and by the Alameda County Sheriff was unreasonable and inhumane. More information about the lawsuit, including the Complaint and other documents, is available on the class website, https://sites.google.com/site/nov5oaklandarrest/.
3. What is a class action and who is involved?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called “Class Representatives” (in this case Daniel Spalding, Katharine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green, and Adrian Drummond-Cole) sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. The people together are a “Class” or “Class Members.” The four individuals who sued—and all the Class Members like them—are called the Plaintiffs. The people and government entities they sued (in this case, the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, police commanders, and Sheriff Gregory Ahern) are called the Defendants. One court resolves the issues for everyone in the Class. Class members received an opportunity to exclude themselves (or “opt out”) of the Class in 2012, but no one excluded themself.
4. Has the Court decided who is right?
The Court has not decided whether the Defendants or the Plaintiffs are correct. The Court will decide whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement provides benefits to the Class members and the public, and, if finally approved, will take the form of a final judgment as to the claims or charges that were made or could have been made by the Class members, the Plaintiffs, or the Defendants arising from the November 5, 2010 mass arrest described above.
6. What did the Plaintiffs ask for?
QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page4 of 8
5. W h e n c a n I e x p e c t t o r e c e i v e m o n e y ?
If you submit a valid claim on time, and the court gives final approval to the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing, you can expect to receive your share of the settlement money within about a month of the date the judge signs the final approval order.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
6. Am I part of this Settlement?
If you were arrested on November 5, 2010, in the mass arrest on 6th Avenue in Oakland, and you were not charged with a crime related to this arrest, you are a class member and entitled to the Settlement benefits.
7. What if I was charged with a crime?
If you were charged with a crime related to this arrest you are not part of the Class, even if the charges have been resolved. Only two people were charged with crimes. If you are not sure, go to https://sites.google.com/site/nov5oaklandarrest/ or contact Class Counsel at 415-282-9300 or nov5classaction@gmail.com.
8. What if I was arrested at another demonstration?
This class action lawsuit only concerns the arrests on Friday, November 5, 2010, the day Johannes Mehserle was sentenced. If you were arrested on a different day, and not on Nov. 5, 2010, you are not part of the Class.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS –WHAT YOU GET
9. What does the Settlement provide in terms of money?
The Settlement agreement requires the Defendants to jointly pay the sum of $1,025,000, which includes all attorney’s fees and costs and which will be distributed as follows:
The Class members who submit valid claim forms (“Claimants”) by the deadline of ________ will each receive an equal part of $639,000. The exact amount of money you will receive depends on the number of timely valid claims received. We expect that number to be between 135 and 145, or $4,406 -$4,733 per Claimant.
The four Class Representatives will each receive $9,000 for their service representing the Class. The several lawyers who are Class Counsel will collectively receive $350,000 for their more than two years of work on the lawsuit and their out of pocket costs. Class Counsel will be continuing to monitor Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement, most likely without compensation.
QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page5 of 8
10. What does the Settlement provide in terms of my arrest record?
Everyone who submits a valid Claim Form will receive a court order stating that he or she is factually innocent and is exonerated, and instructing the Oakland Police Department and Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to seal and destroy all arrest records, police reports, investigative reports, booking information, online data, or any other documentation or information pertaining to their arrest. This relief will be the equivalent of a determination of factual innocence pursuant to California Penal Code section 851.8. Thereafter, the arrest shall be deemed not to have occurred and you may answer accordingly any question relating to its occurrence. (See, Cal. Penal Code section 851.8, subd. (f).) The order will also be provided to the California Department of Justice.
11. How will the Settlement prevent future unlawful police conduct?
(a) Crowd Control / Demonstrations Policy As part of the Settlement, the Oakland Police and City of Oakland have agreed to abide by the OPD Crowd Control Policy that was adopted in 2004, in settlement of previous litigation that arose from OPD’s use of “less lethal” weapons on anti-war demonstrators at the Port of Oakland in April, 2003. The Crowd Control Policy provides limitations and guidelines for police action in response to demonstrations and other crowd events, in order to protect constitutional rights, and prevent injury. For example, the Crowd Control Policy provides that OPD shall rely on the minimum use of physical force and authority required to address a crowd issue, and forbids the use of “less lethal” impact munitions for crowd dispersal. The Crowd Control Policy requires a dispersal order and opportunity to disperse before making a mass arrest under most circumstances. OPD and the City will have to meet and confer with the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU before making any material changes to the Crowd Control Policy.
(b) Citation and Release Policy If future mass arrests occur, the Oakland Police Department will release most people who are arrested for minor offenses more promptly, instead of automatically turning them over to the Sheriff’s Office for booking. Persons who have been arrested for misdemeanors, who have valid California ID and no warrants, and as to whom no specific legal exception to state citation and release law applies, will be released with a citation (a promise to appear in court similar to a traffic ticket), as close to the site of the arrests as possible or at a temporary processing station. No fingerprinting will be done as part of the citation and release process. Arrestees may be instructed to appear for booking prior to or after arraignment. Property will not be searched unless necessary and property will not be confiscated unless it contains contraband. The intention of this policy is to release citation-eligible arrestees as promptly as possible, and to avoid transferring such arrestees to the Sheriff's custody. Persons for whom a valid warrant is confirmed, or who do not produce valid identification or who are otherwise found ineligible for citation will be transferred to the Sheriff's custody.
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office has also adopted a new policy and procedure as part of this Settlement which is intended to expedite citation and release if citation-eligible persons are transferred to the Sheriff’s custody as the result of a mass arrest. A streamlined procedure will be followed to process mass arrestees who are eligible for citation and release and who provide a valid California driver’s license or identification card, as quickly as possible. In addition, mass
QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page6 of 8
arrestees will have access to toilet facilities except when actually in transit, and handcuffs will be checked for overtightness before arrestees are transported to the jail and removed at the jail facility as soon as possible. Each vehicle used to transport mass arrestees to jail shall be equipped with the appropriate tool to remove the plastic handcuffs.
(c) Enforcement of Settlement Terms Class Counsel will be able to ask the Federal Court to enforce the Settlement for four years from the date of the court’s final order approving the settlement. Class Counsel will be able to request the court to extend that period of time by an additional three years if there is cause to do so.
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

12. What must I do to obtain the benefits from the Settlement?
In order to recover money and have your arrest records from November 5, 2010 sealed and destroyed, you must submit a Claim form (see attached), signed under penalty of perjury, to Class Counsel, by __________________.
You may hand deliver, mail or fax claim forms to: Rachel Lederman, Attorney, 558 Capp St., San Francisco, California 94110 Fax: (415) 285-5066 Or you may scan and email the form to nov5classaction@gmail.com.
The Claim Form is attached and is also available on https://sites.google.com/site/nov5oaklandarrest/
DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, THE CITY OF OAKLAND, OR THE OAKLAND POLICE DEPT. CONCERNING THIS SETTLEMENT. THOSE AGENCIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT, CANNOT ACCEPT CLAIM FORMS AND CANNOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT OR SETTLEMENT.

13. How do I object to the Settlement?
If you are a Class Member, you can object to the settlement agreement if you don’t like any part of it. You can submit for the Court’s consideration reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. To object, you must send a letter stating that you object to the proposed settlement agreement in Spalding v. City of Oakland, et al. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons why you object to the settlement. The attorneys for the Class and for the defendants will be allowed to file with the Court a written response to any submitted objections.

If you wish to assert any objections, you are required to submit those to the two different addresses below, postmarked by no later than _____________________.

Clerk’s Office U.S. District Court for Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102

Rachel Lederman Attorney 558 Capp Street, San Francisco, CA 94110

QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page7 of 8
14. Do I have to come to court? No. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on __________________________to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend, and you may ask to speak, but you don’t have to. Class Counsel will respond to any questions that Judge Henderson may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you don’t have to come to the Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.
You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter stating that it is your “Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing in Spalding v. City of Oakland, et al. ” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number and your signature. Your Notice of Intent to Appear must be postmarked no later than _______________ and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, and to Class Counsel, at the addresses shown in Section 14 above.
PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT CLAIM FORMS TO THE COURT. THE COURT WILL ONLY ACCEPT OBJECTIONS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING. CLAIM FORMS MUST GO TO CLASS COUNSEL, RACHEL LEDERMAN.
15. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, your rights will be affected. You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and you will be agreeing to a release of the claims that are contained in the Settlement Agreement. However, because you did not file a claim, you will not be entitled to any money from the settlement and you will not have your arrest record sealed and destroyed or receive an order of exoneration.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
16. Are more details available?
Visit the website, https://sites.google.com/site/nov5oaklandarrest/, where you will find the Settlement, the Claim Form, and all other relevant documents about the case. You may also speak to one of the lawyers by calling 415-282-9300 or emailing nov5classaction@gmail.com.
QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document95-5 Filed05/22/13 Page8 of 8

CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM
Spalding, et al v. City of Oakland, County of Alameda, et al. U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, Case No. C11-02867 TEH (LB)

DEADLINE: _____________
To be considered for participation in the settlement you must complete this form and mail it by U.S. first class mail, postmarked no later than the deadline; or, email, fax, or hand deliver it, by the deadline, to:

RACHEL LEDERMAN, Attorney 558 Capp Street San Francisco CA 94110

Telephone: (415) 282-9300 Fax: (415) 285-5066 Email: nov5classaction@gmail.com

IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM, EXECUTED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, BY THE ABOVE DEADLINE, YOU WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM THIS SETTLEMENT.

Complete Name: ______________________________________ Date of birth: ___________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________

Day

Evening

Cell

Email: _______________________________________________

Were you arrested on November 5, 2010, in the mass arrest that occurred on 6th Avenue between East

17th and 18th Streets in Oakland?

Yes No

If so, were you ever charged with any crime related to this arrest? Yes No

Are you waiving your right to object to the Settlement? Yes No

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the Unites States that the statements above are true and correct.
Executed in (city and state) _____________________________________________ on (date) ______________________.
Signature: _______________________________________________
If you would like your settlement check mailed to an address different than above, provide it here:

QUESTIONS? GO TO HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/NOV5OAKLANDARREST/.
P.

 
 Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page1 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6

7 DANIEL SPALDING, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

NO. C11-2867 TEH ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

11

Defendants.

12

13

This putative class action arises out of a mass arrest made on November 5, 2010, at a

14 protest following the sentencing of Johannes Mehserle. After allegedly using police lines to

15 confine the crowd in a small area on 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets in

16 Oakland, the Oakland Police Department arrested approximately 150 people that night,

17 including named Plaintiffs Daniel Spalding, Katharine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green, and

18 Adrian Drummond-Cole. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of people who were arrested in

19 that mass arrest and who were never charged with any crime related to the arrest. Defendants

20 are the City of Oakland and several individual Oakland police officers (“City Defendants”),

21 and the County of Alameda and the Alameda County Sheriff (“County Defendants”).

22

Plaintiffs now move for class certification. The County Defendants oppose the

23 motion, but the City Defendants do not. After reviewing the parties’ written arguments, the

24 Court determined that the motion was suitable for resolution without oral argument and

25 vacated the scheduled March 26, 2012 hearing date. For the reasons set forth below, the

26 Court now GRANTS the motion and certifies the proposed class under Federal Rules of Civil

27 Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

28

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page2 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 LEGAL STANDARD

2

A party seeking to certify a class must demonstrate that it has met all four

3 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of

4 Rule 23(b). Rule 23(a) allows a class to be certified only if:

5

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable;

6

7

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

8

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

9

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

10

the interests of the class.

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). That is, the class must satisfy the requirements of numerosity,

12 commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

13

Rule 23(b) provides for the maintenance of three types of class actions. Plaintiffs seek

14 to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(3), which allows a class to be certified if “the court finds

15 that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions

16 affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available 17 methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).1

18 The factors a court should consider when evaluating these issues include the following:

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Id.

(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

26

27

1Plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that the class may also be certified under either

Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2). Because the Court finds certification to be appropriate under Rule

28 23(b)(3), it does not reach these alternative arguments.

2

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page3 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class

2 certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule – that is, he must

3 be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions

4 of law or fact, etc.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). The

5 district court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the moving party’s claims to examine

6 whether the requirements are satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161

7 (1982). Such analysis will often “entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s

8 underlying claim. That cannot be helped.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. If a district court

9 concludes that the moving party has met its burden, then the court has “broad discretion” to

10 certify the class. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001).

11

12 DISCUSSION

13 I. Rule 23(a)

14

A. Numerosity

15

Rule 23 first requires Plaintiffs to show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of

16 all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “Impracticable does not mean

17 impossible, only that it would be difficult or inconvenient to join all members of the class.”

18 Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 259, 266 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The proposed class in

19 this case consists of approximately 150 members, and the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’

20 undisputed contention that joinder would be impracticable.

21

B. Commonality

22

Plaintiffs must also demonstrate commonality under Rule 23(a)(2), which “requires

23 the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury. This does

24 not mean merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law.” Dukes,

25 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiffs’s claims “must

26 depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide

27 resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is

28 central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. For a civil rights claim,

3

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page4 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 commonality is satisfied “where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy that

2 affects all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir.

3 2001). “[I]ndividual factual differences among the individual litigants or groups of litigants

4 will not preclude a finding of commonality.” Id.

5

Plaintiffs contend that the putative class was subjected to the following common

6 course of conduct following their arrest: detention by the County on the street and then in

7 buses and vans parked at the jail garage and loading dock for two to seven hours; denial of

8 access to toilets; restraint of their hands behind their backs with plastic handcuffs; overnight

9 detention at the jail in overcrowded holding cells that lacked beds or other sleeping

10 accommodations and adequate sanitation; deprivation of adequate food; and incarceration for

11 a total of twelve to twenty-four hours before being released without citation. Plaintiffs

12 further contend that all female arrestees were ordered to provide urine samples, which were

13 ostensibly to be used for pregnancy testing. They assert that these common facts give rise to

14 common legal questions concerning Plaintiffs’ detention and conditions of confinement,

15 including whether the conditions violated the First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendments,

16 California Penal Code section 853.6, or California Civil Code sections 51.7 or 52.1.

17

These shared questions are more than sufficient to establish commonality. Plaintiffs

18 have alleged a common course of conduct that is amenable to classwide resolution. The

19 Court addresses the County Defendants’ commonality arguments below, as they go more to

20 predominance rather than to the existence of questions common to the class.

21

C. Typicality

22

Rule 23(a)(3) requires named class members’ claims to be “reasonably co-extensive

23 with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v.

24 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). “The test of typicality is whether other

25 members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not

26 unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the

27 same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992)

28 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page5 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

This test is satisfied here. Defendants argue that each plaintiff experienced an

2 “individual set of circumstances that affected the length of their incarceration.” Opp’n at 7.

3 However, the differences they identify do not defeat typicality. For example, Defendants

4 observe that three named plaintiffs were transported to the jail on buses, while one was

5 transported on a van; that the four named plaintiffs spent varying amounts of time on the

6 buses or van, from less than 1.5 hours to 4-5 hours; and that they were released between

7 2:00 PM and 6:30 PM the following day. These discrepancies do not indicate a material

8 difference in the injuries alleged.

9

Defendants also argue that none of the named plaintiffs was forced to urinate while

10 detained on the buses or vans, in contrast to the class allegation that many class members

11 were forced to urinate on the floors of the buses, often through their clothing. Plaintiff Lopez

12 Green subsequently filed a supplemental declaration indicating that, “[d]uring that period of

13 time that I was waiting to go on the bus, I urinated in my pants.” Lopez Green Suppl.

14 Decl. ¶ 1. However, more to the point:

15

If the asserted injury is the denial of access to a bathroom at a

specific moment of need then the government is correct that the

16

plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood that other inmates

have suffered similarly. If, on the other hand, the injury arises

17

simply out of being housed in a facility in which bathroom access

is unreliable, then all of the approximately 4,000 inmates housed

18

in Building 4 during the subject period share the claim.

19 Tyler v. Suffolk County, 253 F.R.D. 8, 10 (D. Mass. 2008). The same holds true here, where

20 Plaintiffs challenge the common conditions of their confinement, albeit on the street and in

21 buses and vans, rather than in a facility. The fact that only one named plaintiff states that she

22 urinated on herself, and before she boarded the bus rather than on the bus, does not render the

23 named plaintiffs’ claims atypical.

24

D. Adequacy

25

The legal adequacy of the class representatives under Rule 23(a)(4) is determined by

26 the resolution of two questions: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any

27 conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their

28 counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.

5

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page6 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Defendants do not challenge the adequacy of either the named plaintiffs or their counsel.

2 Based on its review of the record, the Court is satisfied that there are no conflicts of interest

3 between the named plaintiffs and other class members and that counsel will prosecute the

4 action vigorously. The Court has further considered the factors enumerated in Federal Rule

5 of Civil Procedure 23(g) and finds that all six attorneys representing Plaintiffs will fairly and

6 adequately represent the interests of the class.

7

8 II. Rule 23(b)(3)

9

Having found that Plaintiffs have satisfied all four requirements of Rule 23(a), the

10 Court now turns to Rule 23(b)(3). Defendants have pointed to no difficulties in managing

11 this case as a class action, and the Court has identified none upon its own consideration. See

12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)(D). Likewise, there appears to be no interest by class members to

13 exert individual control over separate actions, no other litigation concerning the matters at

14 issue in this case, and no reason not to concentrate the litigation in this forum. See Fed. R.

15 Civ. P. 23(a)(3)(A)-(C).

16

The primary dispute in this case is whether common issues as to the County

17 Defendants predominate over individualized issues. As noted above, the Court does not find

18 the individual differences identified by Defendants to be material. The Court now finds that

19 the common issues identified by Plaintiffs and listed above predominate over the individual

20 factual differences identified by Defendants.

21

The County Defendants contend that individualized trials will be required to

22 determine whether they detained Plaintiffs for an unreasonable period of time and whether

23 they subjected Plaintiffs to unlawful conditions of confinement. This Court disagrees. See

24 MacNamara v. City of New York, 275 F.R.D. 125, 148-54 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (certifying under

25 Rule 23(b)(3) classes based on excessive detention and conditions of confinement by the

26 New York Police Department in connection with a series of arrests made during protests of

27 the 2004 Republican National Convention); see also Chang v. United States, 217 F.R.D. 262

28 (D.D.C. 2003) (certifying under Rule 23(b)(2) a class based on the mass arrest of

6

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page7 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 approximately 400 individuals who, among other claims, asserted that they were “handcuffed

2 and held on buses for up to 13 hours, and later detained at the Police Academy Gymnasium

3 for periods ranging from 18 to 36 hours with one wrist cuffed to the opposite ankle”). This

4 action raises questions about the County (and City) Defendants’ common treatment of

5 members of the proposed class. For example, did the County Defendants detain Plaintiffs on

6 buses and vans for several hours without access to toilets or attention to asserted medical

7 needs? Did they ever intend to hold Plaintiffs for a probable cause determination or was it

8 always their intent only to cite and release? Did they require urine samples from all female

9 protestors? Did they detain Plaintiffs in holding cells with no sleeping space and inadequate

10 sanitation? Did they fail to provide adequate food to Plaintiffs? If Defendants did any of

11 these actions, did they violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional or statutory rights? The parties

12 disagree on the relevant legal standards – e.g., whether the presumptively valid 48-hour

13 period between arrest and a probable cause hearing discussed in County of Riverside v.

14 McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), applies to this case, and whether the conditions of

15 confinement are governed by the Fourth or Eighth Amendments – but determining which

16 standards to apply also presents common legal questions that would be appropriate to resolve

17 on a classwide basis. These issues predominate over individualized issues, such as how long

18 each class member spent on a bus or van, and what time on the following day they were

19 released. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to certify the proposed class under Rule

20 23(b)(3).

21

If this case proceeds to trial, the Court will discuss with the parties whether liability

22 and damages should be bifurcated, as well as how damages should be determined. It notes,

23 however, that Plaintiffs assert that, “[i]n this case, the class members’ damages are unusually

24 uniform.” Mot. at 22.

25

26 CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons set forth above, as well as the City Defendants’ non-opposition, the

28 following class is hereby certified: The approximately 150 people who were arrested in the

7

Case3:11-cv-02867-TEH Document41 Filed03/23/12 Page8 of 8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 mass arrest on 6th Avenue between East 17th and 18th Streets in Oakland on November 5,

2 2010, and who were never charged with any crime related to this arrest. Plaintiffs Daniel

3 Spalding, Katharine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green, and Adrian Drummond-Cole are

4 appointed as class representatives. The following counsel are appointed as class counsel:

5 Rachel Lederman, Carol Sobel, Bobbie Stein, R. Michael Flynn, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard,

6 and Carl Messineo. Although the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to have six attorneys

7 appointed as class counsel, it cautions counsel to avoid duplicative work and to minimize

8 staffing inefficiencies.

9

Because the Court has certified a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10 23(b)(3), it must “direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the

11 circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through

12 reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The parties shall meet and confer and

13 attempt to reach agreement on an adequate form and procedure for class notice. They shall

14 file a stipulation and proposed order on or before April 27, 2012, or, if agreement is not

15 reached by that date, shall include an update in their joint case management conference

16 statement due on April 30, 2012.

17

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

20 Dated: 03/23/12 21

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 
 1

2

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6

7 DANIEL SPALDING, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

NO. C11-2867 TEH
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

12

13

All Parties have agreed to a settlement in this case. The settlement agreement dated

14 May 16, 2013 (“Agreement”), was filed with this Court on May 22, 2013, as Exhibit 1 to the

15 Joint Application for Preliminary Approval. Capitalized terms in this order shall have the

16 same meaning as set forth in the Agreement.

17

The Court granted preliminary approval; the Class was notified of the settlement as

18 provided in the Court’s preliminary approval order; and a Final Approval Hearing was held

19 where the opportunity for objections was allowed. No written or oral objections were

20 received. Class Members were previously provided notice of the litigation and an

21 opportunity to exclude themselves from the Class, and no one opted out. Pursuant to Federal

22 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and in accordance with the Agreement, the Court finds the

23 settlement, and the stipulated attorneys’ fees and costs, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

24 Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and with good cause appearing, IT IS

25 HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.

27 §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3)-(4). The court has personal jurisdiction over the Class

28 Representatives, Defendants, and the Class.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2. The Class Notice of the proposed settlement, in the form attached as Exhibit 2 to

2 the Joint Application for Preliminary Approval, constituted the best notice practicable under

3 the circumstances and was reasonably calculated to apprise Class Members of the settlement

4 and the release of rights contained in the Agreement. Pursuant to, and in accordance with,

5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court hereby finds that the Class Notice provided

6 Class Members due and adequate notice of the Agreement, these proceedings, and the rights

7 of Class Members to object to the Agreement.

8

3. Pursuant to Rule 23, this Court hereby approves the settlement as set forth in the

9 Agreement and finds that the settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate to

10 Class Members. Accordingly, the settlement shall be consummated in accordance with the

11 terms and provisions of the Agreement.

12

4. Within fifteen days of the date of this order, Defendants shall pay the sum of

13 $1,025,000 to Class Counsel for distribution to Class Members who submitted Approved

14 Claims, Class Representatives, and Class Counsel, as provided in the Agreement.

15

5. The Court finds that the payments to the Class Representatives provided in the

16 Agreement are not unduly preferential, and the amounts are justified based on the burdens

17 carried by the Class Representatives in commencing and prosecuting this litigation.

18

6. The Court approves the payment to Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs as

19 provided in the Agreement and finds that the stipulated attorneys’ fees and costs payment

20 was the product of arm’s length and good faith negotiations supervised by Magistrate Judge

21 Laurel Beeler, and that it takes into consideration the right of Class Counsel to seek an award

22 of fees that would be substantially higher than the amount agreed to and all other relevant

23 factors.

24

7. Pursuant to Section III.C.1 of the Agreement, the Court will issue a separate order

25 with the names of Class Members who submitted Approved Claims, stating that it is the

26 determination of the Court, pursuant to stipulation of the Oakland Defendants, that these

27 individuals are factually innocent of all charges for which they were arrested, and that these

28 individuals are thereby exonerated. The order will further provide that the Oakland Police

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Department (“OPD”) and any other law enforcement agency that participated in the arrests in

2 question shall seal and destroy all arrest records pertaining to the said arrests.

3

8. Pursuant to Section III.C.2 of the Agreement, the Oakland Defendants will

4 continue to abide by the terms of the Coles/Local 10 settlement stipulation and order dated

5 December 24, 2004 (Case Nos. C03-2961 and 2962 TEH), which is attached as Exhibit A to

6 the Agreement. The meet and confer requirement specified in the Coles/Local 10 settlement

7 order (at page 5, line 28 to page 6, line 9) will be satisfied if the OPD and its counsel meet

8 and confer with representatives of the National Lawyers Guild-SF Bay Area Chapter and the

9 ACLU of Northern California before making any material change to the Crowd Control

10 Policy, the associated Training Bulletin (OPD Training Bulletin III-G), or associated training

11 outlines, in a good faith effort to reach agreement on any such change. All participants will

12 bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs related to any such meet and confer process.

13

9. Pursuant to Section III.C.3 of the Agreement, the OPD shall adopt the policies

14 regarding citation and release of misdemeanor arrestees in instances of multiple simultaneous

15 arrest as set forth in the Agreement, and Paragraph VIII of OPD Training Bulletin III-G,

16 Crowd Control, shall be amended as set forth in the Agreement. The meet and confer

17 discussed in paragraph 8 above shall not be required to make these changes.

18

10. Pursuant to Section III.C.4 of the Agreement, the Alameda County Sheriff’s

19 Office (“ACSO”) shall adopt a new policy and procedure to expedite the citation and release

20 of citation-eligible persons who are transferred to the Sheriff’s custody as the result of mass

21 arrest, as defined in the new policy (ACSO Detention and Corrections Policy and Procedure

22 No. 11.65, Mass Arrest Booking Procedure), attached as Exhibit B to the Agreement.

23

11. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of this

24 order and the Agreement, to resolve any disputes, to facilitate the meet and confer process

25 referenced in paragraph 8 above, and to issue all appropriate orders concerning the

26 Agreement and the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement thereof, for four years

27 from the date of this order. If there is a material breach of the terms of the Agreement within

28

3

1 that four-year time period, any Party may move the court to extend the time for up to an

2 additional three years.

3

Following entry of this order and the accompanying order concerning exoneration and

4 sealing and destruction of arrest records, the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 Dated: 09/09/13 9

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

11

12

13

14

15

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

4

 
 Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 1 of 15
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,PROTO,REFSET−LB,RELATE,STAYED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:11−cv−02867−TEH

Spalding et al v. City Of Oakland et al Assigned to: Hon. Thelton E. Henderson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Relate Case Case: 3:00−cv−04599−WHO Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/13/2011 Date Terminated: 09/09/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Daniel Spalding individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

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

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

Carl L Messineo Partnership for Civil Justice Fund 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202−232−1180 Fax: Email: cm@justiceonline.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A. Sobel Law Office of Carol A. Sorbel 429 Santa Monica Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 393−3055 Fax: 310−451−3858 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E Verheyden−Hilliard , Partnership for Civil Justice Fund 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202−232−1180 Fax: Email: mvh@justiceonline.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Michael Flynn Flynn Law Office 1736 Franklin Street Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510−893−3226

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 2 of 15

Fax: 866−728−7879 Email: michael@flo−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katharine Loncke individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Rachel Lederman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bobbie Fay Stein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl L Messineo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A. Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E Verheyden−Hilliard , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Michael Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Danielle Lopez Green individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Rachel Lederman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bobbie Fay Stein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl L Messineo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A. Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E Verheyden−Hilliard , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Michael Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Adrian Drummond−Cole individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Rachel Lederman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bobbie Fay Stein

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 3 of 15
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carl L Messineo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A. Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mara E Verheyden−Hilliard , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City Of Oakland
Defendant County of Alameda

represented by Christopher Andrew Kee 13014 Whitepine Place Hornbrook, CA 96044 530−340−0171 Email: chriskee@sisqtel.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons Simmons Mediation 1300 Clay St Ste 600 Oakland, CA 94612−1427 (925) 765−2120 Fax: (925) 765−2120 Email: bill@simmonsadr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell Boornazian Jensen & Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94607 510−834−4350 Fax: 510−839−1897 Email: grockwell@bjg.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama Boornazian Jensen & Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94607 510−834−4350 Fax: 510−839−1897 Email: jsazama@bjg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 4 of 15

Defendant Anthony Batts individually and in their official capacities
Defendant Howard Jordan individually and in their official capacities
Defendant Jeff Israel individually and in their official capacities
Defendant Eric Breshears individually and in their official capacities
Defendant Edward Tracey individually and in their official capacities
Defendant Anthony Toribio individually and in their official capacities

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

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 5 of 15

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

Defendant
David Downing individually and in their official capacities

represented by Christopher Andrew Kee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant
Ersie Joyner individually and in their official capacities

represented by Christopher Andrew Kee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant
Mike Poirier individually and in their official capacities

represented by Christopher Andrew Kee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant
Darrin Allison individually and in their official capacities

represented by Christopher Andrew Kee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant
Gregory Ahern individually and in their official capacities

represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jill Sazama (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 6 of 15

Movant Attorney Yolanda Huang

represented by Yolanda Huang Attorney at Law PO Box 5475 Berkeley, CA 94705 510−329−2140 Fax: 510−580−9410 Email: yhuang.law@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/13/2011
06/13/2011 06/13/2011 06/13/2011 07/27/2011 07/28/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011
08/01/2011

# Docket Text
1 Class Action COMPLAINT (with jury demand) against Gregory Ahern, Darrin Allison, Anthony Batts, Eric Breshears, City Of Oakland, County of Alameda, David Downing, Jeff Israel, Howard Jordan, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Anthony Toribio, Edward Tracey (Filing fee $350, receipt number 44611007135). Filed byDanielle Lopez Green, Daniel Spalding, Katharine Loncke, Adrian Drummond−Cole. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/14/2011: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2011)
2 Summons Issued as to Gregory Ahern, Darrin Allison, Anthony Batts, Eric Breshears, City Of Oakland, County of Alameda, David Downing, Jeff Israel, Howard Jordan, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Anthony Toribio, Edward Tracey. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2011) (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2011)
3 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 12/1/2011. Case Management Conference set for 12/8/2011 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2011) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2011) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
4 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Darrin Allison, Anthony Batts, Eric Breshears, City Of Oakland, David Downing, Jeff Israel, Howard Jordan, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Anthony Toribio, Edward Tracey. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 7/27/2011) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
5 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2011) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
6 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susan Illston for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 7/29/11. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2011) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
7 MOTION to Relate Case to Case No. 00−4599−TEH filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 7/29/2011) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
8 ORDER RELATING CASE to C−00−4599−TEH. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/01/2011. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2011) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
9 DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, ANTHONY BATTS, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFF ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY TORIBIO, DAVID DOWNING, ERSIE JOYNER, MIKE POIRIER, AND DARRIN ALLISONS' OPPOSITION TO re 7 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED filed by Darrin Allison, Anthony Batts, Eric Breshears, City Of Oakland, David Downing, Jeff Israel, Howard Jordan, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Anthony Toribio, Edward Tracey. (Kee, Christopher) (Filed on 8/1/2011) Modified on 8/1/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
10 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Mara Verheyden−Hillard ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611062880.) filed by Adrian Drummond−Cole, Danielle Lopez Green, Katharine Loncke, Daniel Spalding. (Attachments: # 1 receipt, # 2 proposed order)(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2011) (Entered: 08/02/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 7 of 15

08/01/2011
08/03/2011 08/04/2011 08/04/2011 08/04/2011 08/08/2011 08/18/2011
08/29/2011 08/29/2011 08/29/2011
09/16/2011
09/19/2011 10/11/2011 12/01/2011 12/02/2011 12/06/2011 12/12/2011

11 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Carl Messineo ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611062882.) filed by Adrian Drummond−Cole, Danielle Lopez Green, Katharine Loncke, Daniel Spalding. (Attachments: # 1 receipt, # 2 proposed order)(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2011) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
Case Reassigned to Judge Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Judge Hon. Susan Illston no longer assigned to the case. (mab, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
12 Order Signed by The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson granting re 10 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice as to Mara Verheyden−Hilliard. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
13 Order Signed by The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson granting re 11 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice as to Carl Messineo. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
14 CLERK'S NOTICE on Reassignment. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Daniel Spalding of re 14 Clerk's Notice & re 8 Order Relating Case and Standing Order of Judge Henderson (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Adrian Drummond−Cole, Danielle Lopez Green, Katharine Loncke & Daniel Spalding of re 12 Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice & re 13 Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Filed on 8/18/2011) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
17 ANSWER to Civil Rights Class Action Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief & Declaratory Relief with JURY TRIAL DEMAND filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 8/29/2011) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
18 Certification of Interested Entities or Persons No.Dist.Civil.L.R. 3−16 filed by Gregory Ahern & County of Alameda (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 8/29/2011) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
19 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER to Complaint filed by City of Oakland, Darrin Allison, Anthony Batts, Eric Breshears, David Downing, Jeff Israel, Howard Jordan, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Anthony Toribio & Edward Tracey. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 8/29/2011) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
20 (PROPOSED) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by City Of Oakland, Anthony Batts, Howard Jordan, Jeff Israel, Eric Breshears, Edward Tracey, Anthony Toribio, David Downing, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Darrin Allison, Daniel Spalding, Katharine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green, Adrian Drummond−Cole. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 9/16/2011) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
21 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 9/19/2011. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
22 NOTICE filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda of Unavailability (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
23 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 12/1/2011) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
24 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT corrected copy filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 12/2/2011) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
25 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
26 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 12/12/2011 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Settlement Conference. Motion for Class Certification to be filed by 1/26/2012, opposition due by 2/24/2012, and reply due by 3/09/2012. Further Case Management Conference and Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 8 of 15

12/13/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 02/23/2012
02/24/2012
03/09/2012 03/14/2012

Floor, San Francisco. (not reported) (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/12/2011) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
27 STIPULATION PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER by City Of Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affirmative Defenses)(Simmons, William) (Filed on 12/13/2011) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
28 NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE before Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Settlement Conference set for 4/10/2012 at 10:30 A.M. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/13/2011. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
29 STIPULATION AND ORDER re Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/14/2011. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
30 MOTION for Class Certification filed by Daniel Spalding. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Responses due by 2/24/2012. Replies due by 3/9/2012. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/26/2012) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
31 MEMORANDUM of Points & Authorities in Support of re 30 MOTION for Class Certification filed by Daniel Spalding. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/26/2012) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
32 Declaration of Plaintiffs in Support of re 30 MOTION for Class Certification filed by Daniel Spalding. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/26/2012) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
33 Declaration of Counsel Carol Sobel, Mara Verheyden−Hilliard, Carl Messineo, Bobbie Stein, and R. Michael Flynn in Support of re 30 MOTION for Class Certification filed by Daniel Spalding. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/26/2012) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
34 Declaration of Rachel Lederman in Support of re 30 MOTION for Class Certification filed by Daniel Spalding. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit Exhibit 19)(Related document(s) 30 , 31 ) (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 1/26/2012) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
35 Statement of Non−Opposition to re 30 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Class Certification filed by Darrin Allison, Anthony Batts, Eric Breshears, City Of Oakland, David Downing, Jeff Israel, Howard Jordan, Ersie Joyner, Mike Poirier, Anthony Toribio, Edward Tracey. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Simmons, William) (Filed on 2/23/2012) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
36 RESPONSE to (re 30 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Class Certification ) −Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification− filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
37 REPLY (re 30 MOTION to Certify Class ) filed byDaniel Spalding. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting plfs' Mot. for Class Certification, # 2 Declaration Plaintiffs' Supplemental Declarations, # 3 Declaration of Rachel Lederman, # 4 Signature Attestation)(Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
38 CLERKS NOTICE:
Effective March 20, 2012, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's courtroom and chambers will be located in the Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom C, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.
On or after March 20, 2012, all filings for matters pending on Judge Beeler's docket, all court appearances, and all deliveries of chambers copies of documents must be made at the San Francisco Courthouse.
The days and times for law and motion calendars and all currently scheduled proceedings remain unchanged.

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 9 of 15

03/20/2012 03/20/2012 03/23/2012
03/27/2012 03/27/2012 03/29/2012 03/29/2012 03/29/2012 04/03/2012 04/04/2012 04/05/2012
04/05/2012

Please note that all of Judge Beeler's case files will be moved to the San Francisco Courthouse, therefore all case numbers assigned to her will be changed slightly to reflect the correct venue. Previously, all case numbers started with 4 to indicate the Oakland office (Example: 4:12−cv−12345−LB). As of March 20, 2012, all of Judge Beeler's case files will begin with 3 to indicate the San Francisco office, but everything else will stay the same (Example: 3:12−cv−12345−LB). When e−filing, using the short case number format will always avoid problems when searching for the correct case: 12−12345 (YY−NNNNN).
For information on the San Francisco Courthouse's accessibility, parking, driving directions, public transit, hotels and other helpful links, please visit our website: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, click on Court Information on the right hand side of our main page, then select the San Francisco link under Address and Jurisdiction. The main telephone number for the San Francisco Division is 415−522−2000. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2012) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
39 CLERK'S NOTICE Vacating Hearing on Monday, 03/26/2012 re 30 Motion to Certify Class. This matter will be decided on papers submitted without oral argument. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
40 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 4/30/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/7/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
41 ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting re 30 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Parties shall meet and confer re: class notice and file a stipulation and proposed order by 04/27/12 or include a discussion in the joint case management conference statement due on 04/30/12 if agreement is not reached by that date. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2012) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
42 REQUEST TO PERMIT DEFENDANT GREGORY AHERN TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE VIA TELEPHONE filed by County of Alameda & Gregory Ahern. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/27/2012) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
43 [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING DEFENDANT GREGORY AHERN TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE VIA TELEPHONE re 42 filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/27/2012) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
44 Request to Excuse Attendance of Former Chief Anthony Batts at the Settlement Conference) filed by City of Oakland, Anthony Batts. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 3/29/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
45 [Proposed] Order Excusing Former Chief Anthony Batts from Attending Settlement Conference filed by Anthony Batts, City Of Oakland. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 3/29/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
46 ORDER directing response from Plaintiffs re: Defendants' requests to appear by telephone at settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 03/29/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
47 REQUEST to RESCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 4/3/2012) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
48 DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS' EXCHANGED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
49 ORDER RE−SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to June 13, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Please report to 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Courtroom C, San Francisco, CA. Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler −− granting 47 Ex−Parte Application. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2012) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 6/13/2012 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2012) (Entered:

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 10 of 15

04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/10/2012 05/03/2012 05/08/2012 05/18/2012 05/18/2012 05/21/2012 05/21/2012 06/04/2012 06/05/2012
06/14/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/21/2012

04/05/2012)
50 CLERK'S NOTICE Rescheduling Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 7/2/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/9/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
51 FURTHER REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by County of Alameda & Gregory Ahern. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 4/9/2012) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
52 ORDER RE−SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE re 51 : Settlement Conference re−set for 6/18/2012 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/10/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
53 [DRAFT] JOINT PROPOSAL FOR DISSEMINATION OF CLASS NOTICE and [PROPOSED] ORDER re 41 Order on re 30 Motion for dissemination of class notice filed by Daniel Spalding, City of Oakland. (Attachments: #(1) class notice)(Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 5/3/2012) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
54 ORDER re: Class Notice re 53 . Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 5/8/2012. Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a declaration that class notice has been disseminated by 05/21/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
55 Declaration of WILLIAM E. SIMMONS and REQUEST TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE OF ASSISTANT CHIEF TORIBIO AND DEPUTY CHIEF BREASHEARS AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by City Of Oakland. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 5/18/2012) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
56 [Proposed] Order re 55 REQUEST TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE OF ASSISTANT CHIEF TORIBIO AND DEPUTY CHIEF BREASHEARS AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by City Of Oakland. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 5/18/2012) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
57 Declarations re: 54 Order re Class Notice filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
58 ORDER EXCUSING ASSISTANT CHIEF ANTHONY TORIBIO AND DEPUTY CHIEF ERIC BRESHEARS FROM ATTENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE re 55 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/21/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
59 Declaration of Class Counsel in opposition to re 42 Request to Excuse Sheriff Ahern from Settlement Conference filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
60 DECLARATION OF GREGORY J. ROCKWELL IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO REQUEST TO PERMIT DEFENDANT GREGORY AHERN TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE VIA TELEPHONE filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A, #(2) Exhibit B, #(3) Exhibit C)(Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
61 ORDER permitting Defendant Gregory Ahern to participate in settlement conference via telephone re 42 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/14/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
62 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 6/18/2012) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/18/2012) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
63 AMENDED Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 6/18/2012). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/18/2012) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE:The parties appeared for a Settlement Conference on June 18, 2012. The court sets a further Settlement Conference for July 3, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom C, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA. Sheriff Ahern to appear personally (as discussed with counsel at end of settlement conference and previously during scheduling). Alameda County to email policies and procedures to court's orders box (as agreed) at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. The parties are directed to file updated

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 11 of 15

06/27/2012 06/29/2012 07/02/2012 07/03/2012 07/03/2012 07/05/2012 07/05/2012
07/05/2012 08/31/2012 09/05/2012
09/06/2012
09/06/2012

Settlement Conference statements seven days before the next Settlement Conference in compliance with the court's procedures set forth in the court's Settlement Conference order dated 12/14/2011 and filed at ECF No. 28. The parties need not repeat their earlier Settlement Conference statements in any updated Statement and instead should add new information only. Settlement Conference set for 7/3/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2012) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
64 STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER Excusing Plaintiff Loncke and Defendant Jordan from Settlement Conference filed by Daniel Spalding, City of Oakland. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 6/27/2012) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
65 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXCUSING PLAINTIFF KATHARINE LONCKE AND DEFENDANT CHIEF JORDAN FROM SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE re 64 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2012) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
66 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Daniel Spalding, City of Oakland. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
67 ORDER RE FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (JUDGE BEELER, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2012) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
70 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 7/3/2012). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/3/2012) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
68 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 7/5/2012) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
69 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Case stayed. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/05/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2012) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 9/10/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 9/17/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2012) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
71 NOTICE by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 8/31/2012) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
72 FURTHER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda, City of Oakland, Daniel Spalding, Katharine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green, Adrian Drummond−Cole. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 9/5/2012) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
73 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference and Stay Discovery and Litigation Pending Further Settlement Conference re 72 : Case Management Statement due by 11/9/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/19/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/05/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE: The parties appeared for a Settlement Conference on July 3, 2012. The court sets a further Settlement Conference for September 26, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in the Oakland Courthouse, Attorneys Lounge. The parties are directed to file updated Settlement Conference Statements seven days before the next Settlement Conference in compliance with the court's procedures set forth in the court's Settlement Conference Order dated 12/14/2011 and filed at ECF No. 28. The parties need not repeat their earlier Settlement Conference Statements in any updated statement and instead should add new information only. Counsel may submit their statements to courts orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a docket text entry only. There

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 12 of 15

09/25/2012 09/25/2012
09/26/2012 10/02/2012
10/03/2012
10/10/2012
10/17/2012 10/23/2012
11/02/2012 11/06/2012 11/08/2012 11/09/2012 11/13/2012

is no document associated with this entry) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE: The settlement conference on September 26, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. will take place at 1301 Clay Street, 4th Floor, Courtroom #2 before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (This is a docket entry only. There is no document associated with this entry) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2012) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
***AMENDED***CLERKS NOTICE: The location of the settlement conference has been changed. The settlement conference on September 26, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. will be held on the 3rd Floor, Courtroom #3 at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2012) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
74 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 9/26/2012) Further Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 10/4/2012 at 1:45 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/26/2012) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE on October 4, 2012 at 1:45 p.m. Further Telephonic Settlement Conference reset to 10/9/2012 at 3:00 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel to provide the court with a dial−in phone number and passcode. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE VACATING FURTHER TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE on October 9, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Further Telephonic Settlement Conference reset to 10/10/2012 at 1:00 P.M. Counsel to provide the court with a dial−in phone number. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2012) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
75 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 10/10/2012) Settlement Conference set for 11/9/2012 at 10:30 A.M. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Telephonic Conference re Settlement Conference set for 10/22/2012 at 2:30 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Telephonic C Conference re Settlement set for 10/16/2012 at 9:30 A.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
76 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 10/17/2012 (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/17/2012) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE VACATING Telephonic Settlement Conference on 10/22/2012 at 2:30 p.m. Telephonic Settlement Conference (with plaintiff's counsel only) reset to 11/2/2012 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The court will initiate the conference call. (This is a docket text entry only. There are no documents associated with this entry) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2012) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
77 Minute Entry: Telephonic Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 11/2/2012) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/2/2012) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
78 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 11/6/2012 (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/6/2012) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
80 ORDER. Settlement Conference set for 12/19/2012 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/8/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
79 FURTHER STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 11/9/2012) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
81 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference and Stay Discovery and Litigation Pending Further Settlement Conference re 79 : Case

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 13 of 15

12/10/2012 12/19/2012
01/22/2013 01/23/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013
02/05/2013
02/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/28/2013

Management Statement due by 1/28/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/4/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/13/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE on December 19, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel to contact the courtroom deputy, Lashanda Scott to schedule a settlement conference in January/February 2013. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE SETTING FURTHER Settlement Conference for 1/25/2013 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. "Updated Settlement Conference Statements" with only new information due by January 18, 2013 at 4 p.m. and can be emailed to the court's orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2012) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE: Defendants to provide emailed update to the court −− confidential or exchanged −− with their views on Ms. Lederman's letter by Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. They should be as specific as possible. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2013) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
82 Remark: In the 1/22/2013 clerk's notice, the court directed an email update by Defendants by 1/23/2013 at 1:00 p.m. That update should be emailed to the orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov as soon as possible. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 1/23/2013) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
83 Administrative MOTION to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related filed by Steven Angell, Miles Avery, Molly Batchelder, Sri Louise, Cicily Cooper, Shareef Elfiki, Theodore Hextor, Lindsay Weber. (Attachments: #(1) Proposed Order)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed 1/25/2013) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
84 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 1/25/2013) Further Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 2/21/2013 11:30 A.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/25/2013) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
85 FURTHER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING FINALIZATION OF TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 1/29/2013) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
86 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference and Stay Discovery and Litigation Pending Finalization of Tentative Settlement. Case Management Statement due by 4/1/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/8/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/29/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
CLERKS NOTICE RESETTING THE TIME FOR THE TELEPHONIC Settlement Conference to 2/21/2013 at 3:30 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel to provide the court with a dial−in phone number by 2/19/2013. Counsel to provide the court with any updates by February 20, 2013 via email at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2013) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
87 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held. (Date Filed: 2/21/2013) Further Settlement Conference set for 3/21/2013 10:00 A.M. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/21/2013) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
88 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 3/21/2013). Further Settlement Conference set for 4/4/2013 at 1:30 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/21/2013) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
89 FURTHER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING FINALIZATION OF TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Gregory Ahern,

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 14 of 15

04/01/2013 04/04/2013 05/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/10/2013 05/13/2013
05/14/2013
05/17/2013 05/22/2013
06/13/2013

County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/28/2013) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
90 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference and Stay Discovery and Litigation re 89 . Case Management Statement due by 5/6/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/13/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/01/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2013) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
91 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 4/4/2013). Further Settlement Conference set for 5/8/2013 at 1:30 P.M. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
Set/Reset Hearing The court vacates the settlement conference set for Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. and resets itfor for an attorneys' telephone conference on 5/28/2013 04:00 PM (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
92 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, SET HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FURTHER STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING HEARING ON MOTION filed by Gregory Ahern, County of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
93 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 7/15/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/22/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. This is a text only docket entry. There is no document associate with this notice. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
CLERKS NOTICE: The court previously set an attorneys' only call for May 28, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. The attorneys are directed to meet and confer with Chief Warshaw and Commissioner Frazier before that date and to submit a joint email update with a proposed timeline for further meetings and/or drafts to the court's orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov by no later than May 28, 2013 at noon. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2013) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
94 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, SET HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FURTHER STAY DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION PENDING HEARING ON MOTION: Motion Hearing set for 7/1/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/13/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2013) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE on May 28, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2013) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
95 Joint APPLICATION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Daniel Spalding. Motion Hearing set for 7/1/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Responses due by 6/5/2013. Replies due by 6/12/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, Coles / Local 10 Stipulation & Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, ACSO Detention & Corrections Policy No. 11.65, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, Proposed Final Order and Judgment, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2, Proposed Class Notice of Settlement, # 6 Declaration Lederman Declaration in Support, #(7) [Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Approval)(Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 5/22/2013) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
96 ORDER granting re 95 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Claim forms and objections due by 08/05/2013. Parties to file joint statement by 08/19/2013. Final Approval Hearing set for 09/09/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/13/2013. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2013) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

Case: 3:11-cv-2867 As of: 10/27/2017 06:48 AM PDT 15 of 15

08/20/2013
09/08/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/25/2013 09/26/2013 09/30/2013

97 JOINT STATEMENT re Class Action Settlement Claims Status filed by Daniel Spalding, City of Oakland. (Attachments: #(1) Proposed Order Final Order & Judgment, # 2 Proposed Order Order of Exoneration and for Sealing and Destruction of Arrest Records)(Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
98 [Corrected Proposed Order] of Exoneration and for Sealing and Destruction filed by Daniel Spalding. (Lederman, Rachel) (Filed on 9/8/2013) (Entered: 09/08/2013)
99 ORDER granting final approval of class action settlement. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/09/13. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2013) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
100 ORDER of exoneration and for sealing and destruction of arrest records. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/09/13. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2013) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
101 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 9/9/2013 before Judge Thelton E Henderson. The Motion for Final Approval is granted. (Court Reporter: Debra Pas) (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/9/2013) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
102 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2013) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
103 Proposed Order re 98 Proposed Order, 97 Status Report, Proposed Supplemental Order of Exoneration by Daniel Spalding. (Flynn, Robert) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
104 Proposed Order Stipulated to by all Parties Supplementing Order of Exoneration by Daniel Spalding. (Flynn, Robert) (Filed on 9/26/2013) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
105 STIPULATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF EXONERATION AND TO SEAL AND DESTROY ARREST RECORD. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/30/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013) (Entered: 09/30/2013)