Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

1 PAUKERT AND TROPPMANN, PLLC Breean Beggs, WSBA 20795
2 522 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 560 3 Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 232-7760
4
5 CENTER FOR JUSTICE
Jeffry Finer, WSBA 14610
6
35 W Main, Ste. 300 7 Spokane, WA 99201 8 (509) 835-5211

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12

13
BETTY RUCKER, and others

14

Plaintiff,

15

Case No.: CV-12-5157-LRS

16

vs.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS

17

OF CIVIL RIGHTS

SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal
18
corporation

CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION

19

Defendant

PENDING

----------------------------~

20

21

I. INTRODUCTION

22 1.
23
24

This class action seeks monetary damages against the Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY for violations of Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated

25

individuals, civil rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth

26
Amendments through its conduct in using the threat and imposition ofjail
27

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 1

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

1

time in the collection of restitution and other legal financial obligations.

2

Spokane County's policy of using non-lawyer employees of the Superior

3
Court Clerk to negotiate Orders Enforcing Sentence and providing legal
4

5

advice to people facing jail sentences willfully violated Ms. Rucker's, and

6
other similarly situated individuals' clearly established constitutional rights
7

8

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments not to be deprived of liberty

9

without due process of law. Further, Spokane County's policy of not

10
granting a preliminary hearing to in-custody offenders of legal financial
11

12

obligations and/or seeking waivers of such hearings that were neither

13
knowing or voluntary clearly violates defendants' rights to such a hearing
14

15

established by Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).

16
17
2.
18

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

19
20
3.
21
22

and 1361, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), (e)(2), ( e )(2)-(3).

23
4.
24
25

This action is brought pursuant to the Fifth and Fomieenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, §1988.

26 5.
27

All acts complained of herein occurred in Spokane County, Washington.

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 2

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12
III. PARTIES Plaintiff BETTY RUCKER is a married woman residing in Benton County, which is in the Eastern District of Washington. She is a real party in interest in this case. Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY is a municipal corporation and is located within the Eastern District of Washington.
IV. FACTS On or about July 3, 2000, Ms. Rucker received a criminal sentence in Spokane County Superior Court that included restitution payments and other legal financial obligations. In January of 2006, Ms. Rucker was arrested and placed in custody for her failure to pay her court-ordered restitution and other legal financial obligations. Ms. Rucker did not receive a preliminary hearing to determine if there was probable cause to believe she willfully failed to pay her legal financial obligations. While being held in the Spokane County jail, a county court employee actin as a Court Collection Deputy spoke with Ms. Rucker and presented her with

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 3

PAUKERT & TROPPl'VIANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

1

a proposed Order Enforcing Sentence- LFO ("OES"), which included a

2
3
12.
4
5

thirty-day sentence. The Court Collection Deputy is not an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington.

6
13.
7
8

Upon belief, Ms. Rucker requested to speak to a judge; however, the County employee advised Ms. Rucker that if she went to a hearing before a

9

judge instead of signing the proposed OES, her penalty would probably be

10
greater.
11

12 14. On or about January 13, 2006, Ms. Rucker, without legal counsel, signed

13
the OES finding her guilty of willful violations of her judgment and
14

15

sentence.

16 15.
17
18

On January 13, 2006, a Spokane County employee, acting as a Court Collection Deputy within the scope of his duties, signed the order noting

19
20
16.
21
22

that that he had advised Ms. Orvis of her legal rights. Upon belief, Ms. Rucker signed the OES in reliance on the advice given her by the Court Collection Deputy, outside the presence of any judicial

23
officer, and absent any judicial inquiry into Ms. Rucker's ability to pay,
24

25

and thereby was obligated to serve thirty days in the Spokane County jail.

26

27

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 4

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

17.
1

In January of 2007, Ms. Rucker was arrested and held in Spokane County

2

jail for her failure to pay court-ordered restitution and other legal financial

3
obligations.
4

5 18. Ms. Rucker was not granted a preliminary hearing to determine if there was

6
probable cause to believe that she willfully failed to pay these legal financial

7

8

obligations

9 19.
10
11

On January 17, 2007, Ms. Rucker was again approached, again while confined in the jail, by a county employee acting as a Court Collection

12

Deputy, who presented Ms. Rucker with a proposed OES, which included a

13 14
15 20.

forty-five day jail sentence. Upon belief, this Court Collection Deputy was not a licensed attorney.

16 21.
17
18

Ms. Rucker stated that she wanted to explain to a judge the reasons she had been unable to make her scheduled payments.

19 22.
20 21 22

Upon belief, the Court Collections Deputy stated that Ms. Rucker could hav a hearing before a judge, but if she did she would probably be given a greater penalty than the one on the proposed OES.

23
23.
24
25

On or about January 12, 2007, Ms. Rucker, without the assistance of counsel, signed the second OES finding her guilty of willful violations of he

26

original judgment and sentence and sentencing her to forty-five days in jail.

27

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 5

PAUKERT & TROPPIVIANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

24. A Spokane County employee, acting as a Court Collection Deputy within
1

2 3 4
5 25.

the scope of his or her duties also signed the order of January 12, 2007, and reported on the order that she had advised Ms. Orvis of her legal rights. In May of2008, Ms. Rucker was arrested and held in Spokane County jail

6
for her failure to pay her court ordered restitution and other legal financial

7

8

obligations.

9 26.
10
11

Ms. Rucker was not granted a preliminary hearing to determine if there was probable cause to believe that Ms. Rucker willfully failed to pay her legal

12

financial obligations.

13
27.
14
15

On or about May 6, 2008, while Ms. Rucker was still confined within the Spokane County jail, a county employee acting within her duties as a Court

16

Collection Deputy spoke with Ms. Rucker and presented her with a proposed

17

OES, which included a seventy-five day jail sentence.
18

19 28.
20
29.
21
22

Upon belief, this Court Collection Deputy was not a licensed attorney. Ms. Rucker stated that she wanted to explain to a judge that she was unable to pay her legal financial obligations.

23
30.
24
25

The county employee informed Ms. Rucker that she had the right to a hearing before a judge, but if she exercised this right instead of signing the

26

proposed OES, she would likely be given a greater penalty.

27

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 6

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

1 31. On or about May 6th, 2008, Ms. Rucker, without assistance of counsel,

2

signed the OES finding her guilty of willful violations of her judgment and

3
sentence, which obligated her to seventy-five days confinement in jail. In
4

5

the alternative, Ms. Rucker could pay $525 towards her legal financial

6
7
8 32.

obligations. A Spokane County employee, acting as a Court Collection Deputy within

9

the scope of his or her duties also signed the order of May 6th, 2008 and

10
reported on the order that he or she had advised Ms. Orvis of her legal
11

12

rights.

13
33.
14
15

Upon belief, Ms. Rucker served 14 days in the Spokane County jail before her husband paid $525 to obtain her release.

16 34.
17
18

The practice of not giving offenders of legal financial obligations preliminary hearings on probable cause was an official policy of Spokane

19
20
35.
21
22

County. The practice of using non-attorneys assigned as Comi Collection Clerks to advise parties of their legal rights in the collections process was an official

23
24
25 36.

policy and accepted practice of Spokane County. The practice of having defendants agree to findings requiring them to serve

26

jail time for failure to make legal financial obligation payments outside the

27

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 7

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

presence of a judicial officer and without a judicial inquiry into their ability to pay, or the willfulness of their non-payment, was an official policy and accepted practice of Spokane County. The practice of having Court Collection Clerks advise defendants who sought or had a legal right to request an in-person colloquy with the court that exercising this right would likely result in a longer period of confinement was an official policy or accepted practice of Spokane County. The practice by Spokane County employees of soliciting a waiver of rights to an in-person colloquy on ability to pay without the person being advised by a lawyer was an official policy or accepted practice of Spokane County. Upon belief, Ms. Rucker served at least 14 days in the Spokane County jail within the applicable statute of limitations as a direct and proximate cause o the Spokane County policies and practices described in paragraphs 35-38. Upon belief, in the same three year period described in the preceding paragraph, thousands of individuals similarly situated as Ms. Rucker have been incarcerated for thousands of days as a direct and proximate cause of the Spokane County policies and practices described in paragraphs 35-38. A reasonable uniform per-day, per-person damage amount for each day illegally incarcerated in the Spokane County jail is not less than $500.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 8

PAUKERT & TROPP~IANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

1

v. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2 42.
3 4 5

Ms. Rucker brings this action on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), (3). The Plaintiff provisionally proposes the following class definition:

6
Individuals incarcerated in the Spokane County Jail, from January 26, 2008

7

8

through the date this matter is resolved, pursuant to an Order

Enforcing Sentence that was based on findings that:

the failure to pay was deemed willful without a formal judicial inquiry on

the record into to the detainee's ability to pay; and/or

the detainee waived the right to a hearing, when said wavier was due

in part to communications from non-attorney employees of the

County who advised the detainee regarding his or her rights to a

hearing or threatened the detainee with a longer detention if the right

to a hearing was exercised.

This is an appropriate class action because the proposed class is so numerous

that joinder of all members is impracticable.

There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether

Defendant's actions violate Plaintiffs and other class members' due process

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 9

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

1

rights under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.

2
3
45.
4
5 46.

Constitution. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class. The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

6
7
8 47.

class. The Plaintiff has available competent counsel with experience in civil rights

9

and prisoner's rights who are willing and able to protect the interests of the

10
class.
11

12 48.
13 14 15

The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making an award of monetary damages appropriate, with respect to the class as a whole.

16 17 18 19
20 49.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. CIVIL RIGHTS- VIOLATION OF FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
The actions of Defendant Spokane County, complained of above, were taken

21

under color of state law. These actions violated clearly established rights

22

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free of unlawful
23

24
25
50.
26
27

deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The Defendant's failure to provide the Plaintiff, and others in the class, a preliminary hearing on probable cause prior to imposing incarceration as a

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 10

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

penalty for non-payment of legal financial obligations and/or a hearing on

whether Plaintiff willfully refused payment of legal financial obligations

violates the Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The Defendant's practice in conjunction with its statutory authority to

collect court-ordered legal financial obligations violated Plaintiffs' rights

because:

A non-attorney county court employee, who is not licensed to practice law,

provided the offenders truncated or incorrect legal advice, which led

individuals to;

Involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently waive their statutory right to

a hearing on their ability to pay their legal financial obligations, which

means:

The government did not meet its burden of proving that any non-payment

was willful.

Therefore, Spokane County incarcerated Ms. Rucker without the due process of
21
22 law in violation of Ms. Rucker's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights.

23
52.
24
25

Spokane County acted intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless or careless disregard and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional

26

rights as previously set out in Washington and federal court decisions.

27

28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 11

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 9920 I (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

Defendants are liable for damages, costs, and attorney's fees, under 42
u.s.c. §§ 1988.
The Plaintiffs right to a preliminary hearing on probable cause has already been fully adjudicated in the case Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), and the County is therefore liable to Plaintiff as a matter of law under principles of estoppel.
B. MUNICIPAL LIBILITY Defendant Spokane County explicitly adopted and implemented a policy, custom, or practice permitting its employees to incarcerate individuals for non-payment of legal financial obligations without first holding a judicial inquiry into their ability to pay and the willfulness of any non-payment. These policies, customs, or practices explicitly allow, condone, ratify, and afford the reckless and erroneous field decisions by its personnel resulting in the unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, liberty. Defendant Spokane County, individually or through its agencies, is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All actions taken by Spokane County in relation to the Plaintiff were taken under the color of law. In violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Defendant Spokane County's illegal actions have

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 12

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

deprived Plaintiff of her Constitutionally-protected rights against imprisonment without the required due process of law. By its conduct as described herein, Spokane County proximately caused the constitutional violations described above. By this conduct, Spokane County violated Plaintiffs federal constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
VII. DAMAGES Spokane County's illegal imprisonment ofMs. Rucker and other similarly situated class members proximately caused damages to be established by the Court at a uniform daily rate for each person in an amount to be proven at trial, and nominal damages for each similarly situated class member. Said uniform damages are for loss of liberty and other general damages.
VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff asks this Court to grant the following relief: Certify this case as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(2), (3); Award compensatory damages at a uniform daily rate per person for each day of illegal incarceration resulting directly and proximately from Defendant's conduct, as set forth above, in an amount to be determined at trial;

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 13

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 1 Filed 11/20/12

Award nominal damages to each person for each day of illegal incarceration
resulting directly and proximately from Defendant's conduct, as set forth
above, in an amount to be detetmined at trial;
For all prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law;
Award Plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in
connection with this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other
applicable law; and
For any further or additional relief which the Court deems appropriate or
just.
Respectfully submitted November 20,2012
PAUKERT AND TROPPMANN, PLLC
Is/ Breean L. Beggs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Breean L. Beggs, WSBA 20795 522 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760
CENTER FOR JUSTICE Jeffry Finer 35 W Main, Ste. 300 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 14

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

 
 Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1 PAUKERT AND TROPPMANN, PLLC Breean Beggs, WSBA 20795
2 522 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 560 3 Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 232-7760
4
5 CENTER FOR JUSTICE
Jeffry Finer, WSBA 14610
6
35 W Main, Ste. 300 7 Spokane, WA 99201 8 (509) 835-5211

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12

13
BETTY RUCKER, and others

14

Plaintiff,

Case No.: CV-12-5157-LRS

15

16

vs.

17

SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal
18
corporation

19

Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION PENDING

20

21

I. INTRODUCTION

22 1.
23
24

This class action seeks monetary damages against the Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY for violations of Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated

25

individuals, civil rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth

26
Amendments through its conduct in using the threat and imposition ofjail
27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 1

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1

time in the collection of restitution and other legal financial obligations.

2

Spokane County's policy of using non-lawyer employees of the Superior

3
Court Clerk to negotiate Orders Enforcing Sentence and providing legal
4

5

advice to people facing jail sentences willfully violated Ms. Rucker's, and

6
other similarly situated individuals' clearly established constitutional rights

7

8

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments not to be deprived of liberty

9

without due process of law. Further, Spokane County's policy of not

10
providing hearings to in-custody offenders of legal financial obligations
11

12

prior to seeking incarceration for non-payment and/or seeking waivers of

13
such hearings that were neither knowing or voluntary clearly violates
14

15

defendants' rights to such a hearing.

16
17
2.
18

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

19
20
3.
21
22

and 1361, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), (e)(2), (e)(2)-(3).

23
4.
24
25

This action is brought pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, §1988.

26 5.
27

All acts complained of herein occurred in Spokane County, Washington.

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 2

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1

III. PARTIES

2 6.
3 4 5

Plaintiff BETTY RUCKER is a married woman residing in Benton County, which is in the Eastern District of Washington. She is a real party in interest in this case.

6
7.
7
8

Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY is a municipal corporation and is located within the Eastern District of Washington.

9
10
8.
11

IV. FACTS On or about July 3, 2000, Ms. Rucker received a criminal sentence in

12 13 14
15 9.

Spokane County Superior Court that included restitution payments and other legal financial obligations. In January of 2006, Ms. Rucker was arrested and placed in custody for her

16

failure to pay her court-ordered restitution and other legal financial

17

obligations.
18

19 10.
20 21 22

Ms. Rucker did not receive a preliminary hearing to determine if there was probable cause to believe she willfully failed to pay her legal financial obligations.

23
11.
24
25

While being held in the Spokane County jail, a county court employee actin as a Court Collection Deputy spoke with Ms. Rucker and presented her with

26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 3

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

a proposed Order Enforcing Sentence- LFO ("OES"), which included a
1

2
3
12.
4
5

thirty-day sentence. The Court Collection Deputy is not an attmney licensed to practice law in Washington.

6
13.
7
8

Upon belief, Ms. Rucker requested to speak to a judge; however, the County employee advised Ms. Rucker that if she went to a hearing before a

9

judge instead of signing the proposed OES, her penalty would probably be

10
greater.
11

12 14. On or about January 13, 2006, Ms. Rucker, without legal counsel, signed

13
the OES finding her guilty of willful violations of her judgment and
14

15

sentence.

16 15.
17
18

On January 13, 2006, a Spokane County employee, acting as a Court Collection Deputy within the scope of his duties, signed the order noting

19

that that he had advised Ms. Rucker of her legal rights.

20
16. Upon belief, Ms. Rucker signed the OES in reliance on the advice given
21

22

her by the Court Collection Deputy, outside the presence of any judicial

23

officer, and absent any judicial inquiry into Ms. Rucker's ability to pay,

24

25

and thereby was obligated to serve thirty days in the Spokane County jail.

26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 4

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1 17. In January of2007, Ms. Rucker was arrested and held in Spokane County

2 3 4
5 18.

jail for her failure to pay court-ordered restitution and other legal financial obligations. Ms. Rucker was not granted a preliminary hearing to determine if there was

6
probable cause to believe that she willfully failed to pay these legal financial

7

8

obligations

9 19.
10
11

On January 17, 2007, Ms. Rucker was again approached, again while confined in the jail, by a county employee acting as a Court Collection

12

Deputy, who presented Ms. Rucker with a proposed OES, which included a

13 14
15 20.

forty-five day jail sentence. Upon belief, this Court Collection Deputy was not a licensed attorney.

16 21.
17
18

Ms. Rucker stated that she wanted to explain to a judge the reasons she had been unable to make her scheduled payments.

19 22.
20 21 22

Upon belief, the Court Collections Deputy stated that Ms. Rucker could hav a hearing before a judge, but if she did she would probably be given a greater penalty than the one on the proposed OES.

23
23.
24
25

On or about January 12, 2007, Ms. Rucker, without the assistance of counsel, signed the second OES finding her guilty of willful violations of he

26

original judgment and sentence and sentencing her to forty-five days in jail.

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 5

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1 24. A Spokane County employee, acting as a Court Collection Deputy within

2 3 4
5 25.

the scope of his or her duties also signed the order of January 12, 2007, and reported on the order that she had advised Ms. Rucker of her legal rights. In May of2008, Ms. Rucker was anested and held in Spokane County jail

6
for her failure to pay her court ordered restitution and other legal financial
7

8

obligations.

9 26.
10
11

Ms. Rucker was not granted a preliminary hearing to detennine if there was probable cause to believe that Ms. Rucker willfully failed to pay her legal

12

financial obligations.

13
27.
14
15

On or about May 6, 2008, while Ms. Rucker was still confined within the Spokane County jail, a county employee acting within her duties as a Court

16

Collection Deputy spoke with Ms. Rucker and presented her with a proposed

17

18

OES, which included a seventy-five day jail sentence.

19 28.
20
29.
21
22

Upon belief, this Court Collection Deputy was not a licensed attorney. Ms. Rucker stated that she wanted to explain to a judge that she was unable to pay her legal financial obligations.

23
30.
24
25

The county employee informed Ms. Rucker that she had the right to a hearing before a judge, but if she exercised this right instead of signing the

26

proposed OES, she would likely be given a greater penalty.

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 6

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1 31. On or about May 6th, 2008, Ms. Rucker, without assistance of counsel,

2

signed the OES finding her guilty of willful violations of her judgment and

3
sentence, which obligated her to seventy-five days confinement in jail. In
4

5

the alte1native, Ms. Rucker could pay $525 towards her legal financial

6
7
8 32.

obligations. A Spokane County employee, acting as a Court Collection Deputy within

9

the scope of his or her duties also signed the order of May 6th, 2008 and

10
reported on the order that he or she had advised Ms. Rucker of her legal
11

12

rights.

13
33.
14
15

Upon belief, Ms. Rucker served 14 days in the Spokane County jail before her husband paid $525 to obtain her release.

16 34.
17
18

The practice of not giving offenders of legal financial obligations preliminary hearings on probable cause was an official policy of Spokane

19
20
35.
21
22

County. The practice of using non-attorneys assigned as Court Collection Clerks to advise parties oftheir legal rights in the collections process was an official

23
24
25 36.

policy and accepted practice of Spokane County. The practice of having defendants agree to findings requiring them to serve

26

jail time for failure to make legal financial obligation payments outside the

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 7

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1

presence of a judicial officer and without a judicial inquiry into their ability

2 3 4
5 37.

to pay, or the willfulness of their non-payment, was an official policy and accepted practice of Spokane County. The practice of having Court Collection Clerks advise defendants who

6
sought or had a legal right to request an in-person colloquy with the court
7

8

that exercising this right would likely result in a longer period of

9
10
38.
11

confinement was an official policy or accepted practice of Spokane County. The practice by Spokane County employees of soliciting a waiver of rights

12

to an in-person colloquy with a judge on ability to pay without the person

13
being advised by a lawyer was an official policy or accepted practice of
14

15

Spokane County.

16 39.
17
18

Upon belief, Ms. Rucker served at least 14 days in the Spokane County jail within the applicable statute of limitations as a direct and proximate cause o

19
20
40.
21
22

the Spokane County policies and practices described in paragraphs 35-38. Upon belief, in the same period described in the preceding paragraph, thousands of individuals similarly situated as Ms. Rucker have been

23
incarcerated for thousands of days as a direct and proximate cause of the
24

25

Spokane County policies and practices described in paragraphs 35-38.

26

27

28 AMENDEDCO~LAINTFOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 8

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 9920 1 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

41.
1

A reasonable uniform per-day, per-person damage amount for each day

2 3 4
s 42.

illegally incarcerated in the Spokane County jail is not less than $500. V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Ms. Rucker brings this action on behalf of herself, and all others similarly

6
situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), (3). The Plaintiff

7

8

provisionally proposes the following class definition:

9 Individuals incarcerated in the Spokane County Jail, from January 26, 2008
10
through the date this matter is resolved, pursuant to an Order
11

12

Enforcing Sentence that was based on findings that:

the failure to pay was deemed willful without a formal judicial inquiry on

the record into to the detainee's ability to pay; and/or

the detainee waived the right to a hearing, when said wavier was due

in part to communications from non-attorney employees of the

County who advised the detainee regarding his or her rights to a

hearing or threatened the detainee with a longer detention if the right

to a hearing was exercised.

This is an appropriate class action because the proposed class is so numerous

that joinder of all members is impracticable.

AMENDEDCO~LAINTFOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 9

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1 44. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether

2

Defendant's actions violate Plaintiffs and other class members' due process

3
rights under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
4

5

Constitution.

6
45.
7
8

Questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to

9

other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the

10
controversy.
11

12 46. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.

13
47.
14
15

The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

16 48.
17
18

The Plaintiff has available competent counsel with experience in civil rights and prisoner's rights who are willing and able to protect the interests of the

19
20
49.
21
22

class. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making declaratory relief, injunctive relief and an award

23

of monetary damages appropriate, with respect to the class as a whole.

24

25

26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS -10

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 9920 I (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

2

A. CIVIL RIGHTS- VIOLATION OF FIFTH AND

3

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

4 50.
5
6

The actions of Defendant Spokane County, complained of above, were taken under color of state law. These actions violated clearly established rights

7 8 9
10 51.

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free of unlawful deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The Defendant's failure to provide the Plaintiff, and others in the class, a

11

preliminary hearing on probable cause prior to imposing incarceration as a

12

13

penalty for non-payment of legal financial obligations and/or a hearing on

14 15 16
17 52.

whether Plaintiff willfully refused payment of legal financial obligations violates the Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment right to due process. The Defendant's practice in conjunction with its statutory authority to

18
collect court-ordered legal financial obligations violated Plaintiffs' rights
19

20

because:

21 1)
22
23

A non-attorney county court employee, who is not licensed to practice law, provided the offenders truncated or incorrect legal advice, which led

24

individuals to;

25

26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 11

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

2) Involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently waive their statutory right to
1

2 3 4
5 3)

a hearing on their ability to pay their legal financial obligations, which means: The government did not meet its burden of proving that any non-payment

6
was willful.
7
8 Therefore, Spokane County incarcerated Ms. Rucker without the due process of

9 law in violation of Ms. Rucker's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights.
10
53. Spokane County acted intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless or
11

12

careless disregard and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional

13 14
15 54.

rights as previously set out in Washington and federal court decisions. Defendants are liable for damages, costs, and attorney's fees, under 42

16
17
55.
18

u.s.c. §§ 1988.
The Plaintiffs right to a preliminary hearing on probable cause has already

19

been fully adjudicated in the case Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973),

20
and the County is therefore liable to Plaintiff as a matter of law under
21

22

principles of estoppel.

23
24
25 56.

B. MUNICIPAL LIBILITY Defendant Spokane County explicitly adopted and implemented a policy,

26

custom, or practice permitting its employees to incarcerate individuals for

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 12

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 9920 I (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

non-payment of legal financial obligations without first holding a judicial
1

2

inquiry into their ability to pay and the willfulness of any non-payment.

3
These policies, customs, or practices explicitly allow, condone, ratify, and
4

5

afford the reckless and erroneous field decisions by its personnel resulting in

6
7
8 57.

the unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, liberty. Defendant Spokane County, individually or through its agencies, is a

9

"person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All actions taken by

10
Spokane County in relation to the Plaintiff were taken under the color of
11

12

law. In violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

13
States Constitution, Defendant Spokane County's illegal actions have
14

15

deprived Plaintiff of her Constitutionally-protected rights against

16
17
58.
18

imprisonment without the required due process of law. By its conduct as described herein, Spokane County proximately caused the

19
20
59.
21
22

constitutional violations described above. By this conduct, Spokane County violated Plaintiffs federal constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23
60.
24
25

Defendant's illegal conduct towards the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals proximately caused them an injury in fact of illegal incarceration

26

and said injury can be addressed by declaratory, injunctive and monetary

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS - 13

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1

relief. If the Defendant is not enjoined from its illegal conduct in the future,

2

the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals will likely suffer irreparable

3
harm in the form of future illegal incarceration.
4

5

VII. DAMAGES

6
61.
7
8

Spokane County's illegal imprisonment ofMs. Rucker and other similarly situated class members proximately caused damages to be established by the

9

Court at a uniform daily rate for each person in an amount to be proven at

10
trial, and nominal damages for each similarly situated class member. Said
11

12

uniform damages are for loss of liberty and other general damages. In the

13
alternative, the Court should establish the aggregate amount of total damage
14

15

suffered by all class members.

16

VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

17

18

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff asks this Court to grant the following relief:

19 62.
20
63.
21
22

Certify this case as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(2), (3); Award compensatory damages at a uniform daily rate per person for each day of illegal incarceration resulting directly and proximately from

23

Defendant's conduct, as set forth above, in an amount to be determined at

24

25

trial;

26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 14

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

64.
1

Award nominal damages to each person for each day of illegal incarceration

2 3 4
5 65.

resulting directly and proximately from Defendant's conduct, as set forth above, in an amount to be determined at trial; For all prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law;

6
66.
7
8

Declare that Defendant's illegal conduct as alleged at paragraphs 9-40, is unconstitutional and prohibited;

9 67.
10
11

Issue a permanent injunction against the Defendant enjoining it from engaging in the unconstitutional conduct alleged at paragraphs 9-40;

12 68. Award Plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in

13
connection with this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other
14

15

applicable law; and

16 69.
17
18

For any further or additional relief which the Court deems appropriate or just.

19

Respectfully submitted December 18, 2012

20
PAUKERT AND TROPPMANN, PLLC
21

22
s/ Breean L. Beggs

23

Breean L. Beggs, WSBA 20795

24

522 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 560

Spokane, WA 99201

25

(509) 232-7760

26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 15

PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 232-7760

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 6 Filed 12/18/12

1

CENTER FOR JUSTICE

Jeffry Finer

2

35 W Main, Ste. 300

3

Spokane, WA 99201

(509) 835-5211

4

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

8

9

I hereby certify that on December 18, 2012, I electronically filed the

10 foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will send

11 notification of such filing to the following:

12

13

Michael T. Kitson

mtk@pattersonbuchanan.com

14

Michael A. Patterson 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500

map@pattersonbuchanan.com

15

Seattle, WA 98121

16

Jeffry Finer

17

35 W Main, Ste. 300

18

Spokane, WA 99201

j effry@finer-bering.com

19

DATED December 18, 2012.

20

21

s/Breean L. Beggs

Paukert & Troppmann, PLLC

22

522 W. Riverside, Suite 560

23

Spokane, WA 99201

Telephone: (509) 232.7760

24

Fax: (509) 232.7762

25

E-Mail: bbeggs@pt-law.com

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
26

27

28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS- 16

PAUKERT & TROPPIVIANN, PLLC
522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 560 Spokane, WA99201 (509) 232-7760

 
 1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5

BETTY RUCKER, and others,

)

6

)

Plaintiffs,

) No. CV-12-5157-LRS

7

)

vs.

) ORDER RE

8

) MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL

) SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal )

corporation,

)

10

)

Defendant.

)

11 ______________________________ )

12
BEFORE THE COURT are the Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary
13
Judgment (ECF No. 14) and the Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion For Partial Summary
14
Judgment (ECF No. 18). These motions were heard with oral argument on
15
November 14, 2013. Andrew S. Biviano, Esq., argued for Plaintiffs. Michael T.
16
Kitson, Esq., argued for Defendant.
17

18
I. BACKGROUND
19
This is a 42 U.S.C. §1983 class action. Plaintiff, Betty Rucker, asserts her
20
federal 5th and 14th Amendment due process rights, and the rights of similarly
21
situated class members, were violated by Defendant Spokane County when they
22
were incarcerated for failing to pay legal financial obligations without a judicial
23
inquiry regarding the reasons for their failure to pay. Furthermore, Plaintiff
24
asserts that written waivers of such a hearing executed by her and others similarly
25
situated were not executed knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
26

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 1

1

Once an offender is no longer in the custody or under the supervision of the

2 Washington Department of Corrections (DOC), county court clerks are statutorily

3 empowered to enter into stipulated agreements regarding sanctions for violations

4 of Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) imposed by a court as part of a criminal

5 sentence (i.e., a fine and/or restitution and/or reimbursement for court costs).

6 RCW 9.94B.040(3)(a)(i). A clerk’s office has a broad range of sanctions which

7 it may impose, including jail time. These stipulated agreements are in the form of

8 an “Order Enforcing Sentence-LFO” (OES) and are subject to judicial approval.

9 RCW 9.94B.040(1). Each and every stipulated agreement must be submitted to

10 the court and the prosecuting attorney, and must outline the violation or violations

11 and the sanctions imposed. RCW 9.94B.040(3)(a)(ii). The court has the power

12 to accept the agreement as written, or hold a hearing and modify the sanctions

13 imposed, in which case the offender may withdraw from the stipulated agreement.

14 Id. If an offender fails to comply with a stipulated agreement after judicial

15 acceptance, the court may take action regarding the original non-compliance and

16 may sanction non-compliance with the stipulated agreement as an additional

17 violation. RCW 9.94B.040(3)(a)(iii).

18

Plaintiff was incarcerated by Defendant for failure to pay LFOs on five

19 separate occasions in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2013. On each of those

20 occasions, Plaintiff was sentenced to jail pursuant to a stipulated OES. (ECF Nos.

21 16-6, 16-7, 16-8, 16-10 and 16-11). These orders were presented to her by the

22 Spokane County Clerk while she was in custody. Each stipulated order included

23 a finding that Plaintiff had willfully failed to pay financial obligations “as

24 directed.”

25

On each occasion that Plaintiff was sentenced to jail, a hearing was not

26 conducted in which a court inquired into and made findings whether Plaintiff had

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 2

1 the ability to pay her LFOs, whether she had made bona fide efforts to acquire the

2 resources to pay, and, if necessary, whether alternative measures other than

3 imprisonment were appropriate.

4

On the first four occasions, Plaintiff signed the OES beneath a statement

5 that purported to be a waiver of her right to a hearing and her right to an attorney.

6 It reads as follows:

7

I have the right to be brought before the Court for a hearing,

and to have an attorney present to represent me, and that the

8

Court will appoint an attorney to represent me if I cannot afford

one[.] [B]y my signature below[,] I hereby waive my right to an

9

attorney and having read the above modification(s) and having

agreed to the punishment imposed, agree to the entry of this order.

10

Plaintiff signed the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011 orders “pro se.” Plaintiff

11

was represented by the county public defender’s office when she signed the 2011

12

order, and the same was true when she signed the 2013 order. Plaintiff was

13

incarcerated pursuant to the 2013 order, although this order, unlike the others, did

14

not include a purported waiver of rights.

15

On each of the stipulated orders, a “Court Collection Deputy” affixed

16

his/her signature below the Plaintiff’s signature indicating he/she had “advised the

17

defendant of a right to a hearing, the right to have a lawyer at the hearing, the right

18

to have a lawyer appointed at public expense if the defendant cannot afford a

19

lawyer” and that he “witnessed the defendant affix his/her signature above after

20

being advised of his/her rights.”

21

Each of the stipulated orders was then subsequently submitted to a judge for

22

approval as indicated by his/her signature on the order. Each of the stipulated

23

orders also bears the signature of a deputy prosecuting attorney.

24

The singular issue presented by the parties’ cross-motions for summary

25

judgment is whether the Plaintiff and others like her can waive their rights to a a

26

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 3

1 LFO hearing in which a court inquires into and makes findings whether the

2 offender has the ability to pay the LFOs.

3

Defendant acknowledges that “[c]onvicted criminal defendants have a

4 constitutional due process right to a hearing where the court inquires into the

5 defendant’s ability to pay a [LFO] prior to being imprisoned for failing to make

6 payments.” Defendant asserts, however, that “[c]ase law, common sense, and

7 fundamental fairness dictate that the right to an LFO hearing, like virtually all

8 rights whether Constitutional or not, can be knowingly, intelligently, and

9 voluntarily waived.”

10

On the other hand, Plaintiff asks the court to hold “that parties cannot waive

11 a court’s constitutional duty to inquire into an offender’s ability to pay legal

12 financial obligations prior to imposing sanctions for non-payment” and that “the

13 County has violated the Fourteenth Amendment by incarcerating Plaintiff for

14 failure to pay legal financial obligations without inquiring into, and making

15 findings on her, ability to pay.”

16

17 II. DISCUSSION

18

Over 30 years ago, in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672, 103 S.Ct.

19 2064 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held:

20

In [probation] revocation proceedings for failure to pay

a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into

21

the reasons for the failure to pay. If the probationer

willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient

22

bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay,

the court may revoke probation and sentence the defendant

23

to imprisonment within the authorized range of its

sentencing authority. If the probationer could not pay

24

despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources

to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of

25

punishment other than imprisonment. Only if alternate

measures are not adequate to meet the State’s interest

26

in punishment and deterrence may the court imprison

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 4

1

a probationer who has made sufficient bona fide efforts

to pay. To do otherwise would deprive the probationer

2

of his conditional freedom simply because, through no

fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine. Such a

3

deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness

required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

4

Since then, no court has directly confronted the issue of whether the

5

Bearden inquiry can be waived. No court has explicitly held the inquiry cannot

6

be waived. Nor has this court found any case implicitly suggesting it cannot be

7

waived, including State v. Nason, 166 Wn.2d 936, 233 P.3d 848 (2010), as

8

discussed below. On the other hand, the court has found at least two cases

9

suggesting it can be waived under the proper circumstances.

10

In De Luna v. Hidalgo County, Texas, 853 F.Supp.2d 623 (S.D. Tex. 2012),

11

two students, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, brought a 42 U.S.C.

12

§1983 action against state court magistrates and Hidalgo County alleging violation

13

of federal due process and equal protection rights because of their placement in

14

jail for unpaid fines or costs related to violations of the Texas Education Code.

15

The federal district court held there was a violation of due process because of the

16

county’s policy of jailing individuals with fine-only misdemeanor offenses who

17

failed to directly inform the arraigning magistrate of their indigency. According

18

to the court, “the absence of any inquiry into a defendant’s indigency unless the

19

defendant ‘raises’ it of his or her own accord does not provide the process due.”

20

Id. at 648. Based on its review of Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent,

21

including Bearden, the district court concluded it is not necessary for a defendant

22

to affirmatively raise his/her indigency in order to trigger the court’s obligation

23

to inquire into indigency before ordering a defendant jailed for nonpayment. The

24

district court found that “[t]he process in place in Hidalgo County clearly risks

25

that the defendants who do not think to ‘speak up’ during arraignment about their

26

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 5

1 inability to pay fines may be jailed solely by reason of their indigency, which the

2 Constitution clearly prohibits.” Id. Instead “[d]ue process requires a forum in

3 which defendants’ reasons for failing to pay are considered before committing

4 them to jail.” Id.

5

Nevertheless, the defendants in De Luna argued the county’s policy did not

6 violate the named plaintiffs’ constitutional rights because the plaintiffs had waived

7 their right to an indigency determination by waiving the rights of which they were

8 informed and pleading guilty to the offense. Rather than holding a waiver was

9 absolutely precluded, the court concluded the evidence of record showed there had

10 been no effective waiver:

11

[N]either De Luna nor Diaz can be held to have ‘waived’

his or her right to an affirmative indigency determination

12

by waiving the right to counsel at arraignment. Generally

speaking, to be enforceable, a waiver of constitutional

13

rights must be ‘voluntary, knowing, and intelligently

made,” or ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment

14

of a known right or privilege.” D.H. Overmyer Co. v.

Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 185-86, 92 S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d

15

(1972) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[A]

waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very

16

least, be clear.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 95, 92

S.Ct. 1983 (1972). The Court cannot accept that either

17

Plaintiff’s waiver of various constitutional rights of which they

were explicitly informed constitutes a waiver of their right

18

to a process in which the reasons for their inability to pay

would be considered.

19
Id. at 649.1

20

Boyd v. Murphy, 2008 WL 2486025 (E.D. Mo. 2008), involved a 28 U.S.C.

21

22

1 De Luna bears some similarity to State v. Stone, 165 Wn.App. 796, 268

23 P.3d 226 (2012), where the defendant executed a general waiver of rights,

24 including his right to an attorney, but the waiver did not address his right to an

25 LFO hearing at which there would be judicial inquiry into the reason for his

26 failure to pay.

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 6

1 §2254 habeas petition filed by a state prisoner who asserted the sentencing court

2 violated his Due Process and Equal Protection rights by revoking his probation

3 due to his indigence and his inability to pay restitution, notwithstanding the

4 existence of alternatives presented to the court. The court denied the petition,

5 finding the Petitioner had waived the Bearden requirements:

6

The court concludes that although the record does not

reflect compliance by the sentencing court of the Bearden

7

requirements, habeas relief must nonetheless be denied

in this case because it is reasonable to find that Petitioner

8

waived any claim to the very rights he now claims were

violated. Just as a criminal defendant may waive

9

constitutional rights when pleading guilty [citation omitted],

a probationer may waive the elements of due process owed

10

to him at a probation revocation hearing and may waive

the hearing altogether. [Citation omitted].

11

Id. at *5.

12

Constitutional rights are presumptively waivable. United States v.

13

Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 200-01, 115 S.Ct. 797 (1995); States v. Humphries,

14

170 Wn.App. 777, 789, 285 P.3d 917 (2012). This court concludes the Supreme

15

Court in Bearden did not foreclose the possibility that a defendant could

16

effectively waive his constitutional right to have a court inquire into the reasons

17

for his failure to pay a legal financial obligation. The court agrees with Defendant

18

that Bearden is simply an extension of the due process rights the Supreme Court

19

earlier enunciated in Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (1972), and

20

Gagon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756 (1973), with regard to parole and

21

probation revocation proceedings. Those rights- the right to a preliminary hearing

22

to establish probable cause and a final hearing to determine whether there has

23

been a violation- are waivable as explicitly recognized in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1,

24

“Revoking or Modifying Probation or Supervised Release.” 32.1(b)(1)(A) states

25

“[t]he person may waive the [preliminary] hearing.” 32.1(b)(2) states that

26

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 7

1 “[u]nless waived by the person, the court must hold the [final] revocation hearing

2 within a reasonable time in the district having jurisdiction.” This court does not

3 believe the fact an alleged violation involves the failure to pay a legal financial

4 obligation precludes an individual from effectively waiving his right to either a

5 preliminary or a final revocation hearing. Absent an effective waiver, however,

6 the court is obliged- has a duty- to hold those hearings and, where the alleged

7 violation involves a failure to pay a legal financial obligation, must inquire into

8 the reasons for the failure to pay. The constitutional right to this inquiry gives rise

9 to the court’s duty to make the inquiry. The duty does not exist independently of

10 the right, however. Therefore, if the right is knowingly, intelligently and

11 voluntarily waived, the court is not obliged to make the inquiry. Nevertheless, the

12 court has a duty in the first instance to ensure a waiver is knowing, intelligent and 13 voluntary.2

14

While the court will not go as far as Defendant in asserting that State v.

15 Nason indicates a Bearden inquiry can be waived via the stipulated agreements

16 authorized under Washington law, the court agrees that Nason does not suggest

17 a Bearden inquiry can never be waived. At issue in Nason was an “auto-jail”

18 ///

19 ///

20

21

2 For example, in criminal cases, the preferred procedure to insure that a

22 waiver of the right to counsel is knowingly and intelligently made is for the

23 court to conduct a hearing to determine if the defendant has an understanding

24 of the nature of the charges against him, the possible penalties, and the dangers

25 and disadvantages of self-representation. United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d

26 1448, 1457 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 881, 114 S.Ct. 225 (1993).

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 8

1 provision in a court order. This is not an issue in the captioned case.3 It is well

2 settled after Nason that “auto-jail” provisions violate due process. In Nason, the

3 auto jail provision stated: "The defendant shall pay $25 or more monthly,

4 effective 8-15-06. The case is to be reviewed 1/10/07 for compliance. If the

5 defendant has not complied with the payment schedule, nor filed a motion with the

6 court for a stay by the review date, the defendant is to report to jail on 1/17/07 by

7 4:00 p.m. to serve 60 days in jail." The Washington Supreme Court held this

8 violated due process: "Because due process requires the court to inquire into

9 Nason's reason for nonpayment, and because the inquiry must come at the time of

10 the collection action or sanction, ordering Nason to report to jail without a

11 contemporaneous inquiry into his ability to pay violated due process." 168

12 Wn.2d at 936, 945-46. (Emphasis added). The “auto-jail” provision amounted to

13 a waiver of a future determination of Nason's ability to pay. This was

14 ///

15 ///

16 ///

17 ///

18 ///

19

20

3 The jail time at issue here is not that which the Plaintiff served pursuant to

21 the “auto-jail” provisions contained in the agreed orders prior to July 30, 2009.

22 In State v. Nason, 168 Wn.2d 936, 233 P.3d 848 (2010), the Washington

23 Supreme Court deemed such provisions to be in violation of due process

24 because jail time was imposed based on a hearing that had occurred months

25 earlier.

26

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 9

1 impermissible.4 The issue with regard to Ms. Rucker is whether through a

2 stipulated order she could waive a "contemporaneous inquiry" into, and a present

3 determination of, her financial ability to pay, and if so, what was necessary to

4 accomplish that waiver. Nason does not answer these questions and does not hold

5 that a Bearden inquiry can never be waived.

6

This court holds that it is possible for a criminal defendant to knowingly,

7 intelligently and voluntarily waive a contemporaneous inquiry into whether he or

8 she has the financial ability to pay an LFO, and to stipulate to a finding that his or

9 her failure to pay is willful instead of the result of indigence. As Bearden

10 recognizes, the government has a valid penological interest in incarcerating

11 individuals who willfully refuse to pay their LFOs or fail to make sufficient bona

12 fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay. If a defendant knowingly,

13 intelligently and voluntarily stipulates that his or her failure to pay is willful, there

14 is no need for the court to make specific findings regarding his or her indigence,

15 whether he or she has made bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to pay, or

16 whether alternative measures to imprisonment are available.

17

The critical issue is what process is required to knowingly, intelligently and

18 voluntarily waive a Bearden inquiry and whether the process afforded to Ms.

19 Rucker and others in that regard was adequate to insure their waivers were truly

20

21

4 See also Stephens v. State, 630 So.2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 1994), where the

22 Florida Supreme Court held that a probationer could not be imprisoned for

23 failing to pay court-imposed restitution without the court first determining that

24 the probationer had the ability to pay but willfully refused to do so, even if the

25 probationer previously agreed to waive a future determination of his ability to

26 pay.

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 10

1 knowing, intelligent and voluntary. A court has a clear duty to insure that those

2 who appear before it and indicate they wish to waive constitutional rights do so

3 knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. This is the issue to which the parties and

4 the court will now turn their attention in this litigation.

5

6 III. CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s Motion For Partial

8 Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED and the Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion

9 For Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. This court holds as a

10 matter of law that the right to a contemporaneous Bearden hearing prior to

11 incarceration for LFO violations may be waived.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Executive shall forward a copy of this

13 order to counsel of record.

14

DATED this 25th of November, 2013.

15
s/Lonny R. Suko
16

17

LONNY R. SUKO

Senior United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 28 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 11

 
 1

2

3

4

Michael A. Patterson, WSBA 7976 5 Michael T. Kitson, WSBA 41681

6

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.

7 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98121 8 Tel. 206.462.6700

9 Attorneys for Defendant

Honorable Lonny R. Suko

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12 BETTY RUCKER, and others,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal 16 corporation,

17

Defendant.

No. CV-12-05157-LRS ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

18

19

THIS MATTER, having come regularly before the Court in the above-

20 captioned matter upon the Parties’ Joint Motion for Class Certification for

21 Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, pursuant

22 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and the Court

having reviewed the files and pleadings herein, including: 23

1. Joint Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes and 24

Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement; and 25

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.

SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 1

2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

CV-12-05157-LRS

12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

1

2. The Declaration of Michael T. Kitson in Support of Joint Motion for

2

Class Certification for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of

3

Proposed Settlement, including the Settlement Agreement, which

4

together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for

5

a proposed settlement of this matter.

6 THE COURT FINDS and ORDERS:
7

8

1. This Order (“Preliminary Approval Order”) incorporates by

9 reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement; all italicized terms shall

10 have the same meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

11

2. The class definition proposed by the parties is appropriate.

12 3. The requirements of FRCP 23(a) are satisfied.

13 4. The action is properly maintained as a class action under FRCP

14 23(b)(3).

15

5. Betty Rucker is an appropriate class representative.

16

6. Plaintiff’s counsel, Breean L. Beggs, Jeffry K. Finer, and Andrew

17 Biviano are qualified to serve as Class Counsel.

18

7. The Class shall be certified as:

19

All individuals who were incarcerated in Spokane County Jail between January

26, 2008, and the date the court preliminarily approves settlement of the case,

20

for failure to pay their Legal Financial Obligations as directed by an agreed

“Order Enforcing Sentence-LFO.”
21 8. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the

22 Plan of Allocation to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

23

5. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Settlement

24 Agreement, which is annexed as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael T.

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 2
CV-12-05157-LRS
12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

1 Kitson in Support of Joint Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes

2 and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement.

3

6. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Official Notice of

4 Class Action and Publication Notice, which are annexed as Exhibit B and Exhibit

5 C to the Declaration of Michael T. Kitson in Support of Joint Motion for Class

6 Certification for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed

7 Settlement.

8

7. The Court finds that the mailing, publication, and distribution of the

9 Mailed Notice and Publication Notice substantially in the manner and form set

10 forth in paragraph 9 below, constitutes the best notice practicable under the

11 circumstances, including individual notice to all Class Members, and constitutes

valid, due, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto, complying fully 12
with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process. 13
8. The Court approves the following schedule: 14

15

Notice mailed to Class Members

Within 30 days after the

16

Order of Preliminary

Approval

17

Publication Notice published in No later than 21 days after

18

English in the Spokesman Review and the Order of Preliminary

posted at Spokane County Jail

Approval

19

Last day for Class Members to object January 23, 2015

20

to or opt-out of Settlement.

Deadline for filing Motion For Final January 28, 2015

21

Approval Of Class Settlement And For

22

Attorney’s Fees

Final Approval Hearing

23 ///

24 ///

February 25, 2015

25

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 3

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

CV-12-05157-LRS
12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

1

9. Notice shall be issued by the County in the following form: The

2 County shall cause to be mailed, by first class mail, copies of the Class Notice

3 Form to the last known address of all Class Members. The Publication Notice

4 will run twice (once on a weekday and once on a Sunday) in the Spokesman

5 Review. The Publication Notice will run within 21 days after preliminary

6 approval is entered by this Court.

7

10. At or prior the Fairness Hearing (as defined below), the County shall

8 file with the Court and serve on Class Counsel proof by declaration or affidavit of

9 the mailing, publication, and posting at Spokane County Jail described in

10 paragraph 9 above.

11

11. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held on February 25,

2015, at 2 p.m. before the Honorable Lonny R. Suko, United States District Court 12

Judge, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, 13

920 West Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201, for the purpose of 14
determining: (a) whether the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Agreement is 15
fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court; (b) whether 16
an Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal should be entered; (c) whether the 17
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the 18
Court; (d) whether and in what amount attorneys’ fees and costs should be
19 awarded to Class Counsel; and (e) whether and in what amount an Incentive

20 Award should be issued to the Named Plaintiff, and to rule upon such other

21 matters as the Agreement contemplates and as the Court may deem just and

22 proper.

23 ///

24 ///

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 4
CV-12-05157-LRS
12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

1

12. A Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement and Final

2 Judgment and Dismissal, and all papers in support of the Settlement shall be filed

3 at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Fairness Hearing.

4

13. Any Class Member may appear and show cause as to why the Court

5 should or should not: (a) approve the proposed Settlement as set forth in the

6 Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate; (b) enter the Order of

7 Final Judgment and Dismissal; (c) award attorneys’ fees and costs to Class

8 Counsel; and/or (d) award an Incentive Award to the Named Plaintiff, provided,

9 however, that no person shall be heard with respect to, or shall be entitled to
10 contest, the foregoing matters unless on or before January 25, 2015, that person
11 has mailed notice of his, her or its intention to appear, setting forth briefly each
objection and the basis therefore, together with copies of any papers and briefs in 12
support of said objections and proof of membership in the Class, to the Clerk of 13
the Court at the following address: Thomas S. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 920 West 14
Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, 15
any Class Member who does not make his or her objection in the manner 16
provided for herein, shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall 17
forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the foregoing matters. 18
14. The Court may adjourn the Fairness Hearing from time to time and 19
without further notice to the Class. The Court reserves the right to approve the 20 Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be
21 consented to by the Settling Parties and without further notice to the Class. The
22 Court further reserves the right to enter a Final Order, dismissing the action with
23 prejudice as to the Defendant and against the Named Plaintiff and the Class at or

24 after the Fairness Hearing and without further notice to the Class.

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 5
CV-12-05157-LRS
12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

1

15. Upon entry of the Final Order, the Named Plaintiff, and each of the

2 Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors, assigns, and any other

3 person claiming (now and in the future) through or on behalf of them, and

4 regardless of whether any such Named Plaintiff or Class Member ever seeks or

5 obtains by any means any distribution from the Settlement Fund, shall be bound

6 by the Final Order and by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Upon entry of

7 the Final Order, the Court will dismiss the action in its entirety as to the County,

8 with prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided in the Agreement).

9

16. All reasonable costs and expenses incurred in identifying and

10 providing notice to Class Members and in administering the Settlement Fund shall

11 be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

17. The Court retains jurisdiction over all proceedings arising out of or 12

related to the Settlement Agreement. 13

18. If for any reason the Settlement Agreement does not become 14
effective in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this 15
Preliminary Approval Order shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated 16
nunc pro tunc. 17
19. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to 18
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of this
19 Preliminary Approval Order or the Agreement.

20

20. Pending final determination as to whether the Settlement, as set forth

21 in the Settlement Agreement, should be approved, no Class Member shall

22 commence, prosecute, pursue, or litigate any Released Claims against the County,

23 ///

24 ///

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 6
CV-12-05157-LRS
12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

1 whether directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, and regardless of

2 whether or not such Class Member has appeared in the action.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: September 19, 2014.

5

s/Lonny R. Suko

6

LONNY R. SUKO

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT- 7
CV-12-05157-LRS
12-5157 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Cert

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

 
 Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 83 Filed 02/25/15

1

Honorable Lonny R. Suko

2 Michael A. Patterson, WSBA 7976 Michael T. Kitson, WSBA 41681
3 PATTERSON BUCHANAN

4 FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500
5 Seattle, WA 98121

6

Tel. 206.462.6700 Attorneys for Defendant

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

10 BETTY RUCKER, and others,

11

Plaintiffs,

No. CV-12-05157-LRS

12

v.

13

SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation,

14

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD

15

16

THIS MATTER having come before the Court for hearing, pursuant to the

17 Court’s Order Granting Joint Motion for Class Certification for Settlement

18 Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, dated September 19,

19 2014 (ECF No. 70), and the Court having reviewed the files and pleadings herein,

20 including:

21

1. Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement;

22

2. The Declaration of Michael Kitson in Support of Joint Motion for Final

23

Approval of Class Settlement;

24

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD - 1
CV-12-05157-LRS
Proposed Order Word version

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 83 Filed 02/25/15

1

3. The Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough Regarding Notice

2

Administration;

3

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Incentive Award and Attorneys’ Fees

4

and Costs;

5

5. Declaration of Andrew S. Biviano in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

6

Approval of Incentive Award and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

7

6. Declaration of Breean L. Beggs in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

8

Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; and

9

7. Declaration of Jeffry Finer in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for

10

Approval of Attorneys fees and Costs.

11

THE COURT FINDS and ORDERS:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement 12

Agreement (ECF No. 65-1); all italicized terms herein shall have the same 13

meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 14
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and 15
over all members of the Class. 16
3. The notice given to Class Members was the best notice practicable 17
under the circumstances, including: (i) individual Mailed Notice to all Class 18
Members who could be identified through reasonable efforts based upon Spokane
19 County records and Advanced Address Searches for Class Members whose

20 Mailed Notice was returned as undeliverable; (ii) Publication Notice twice in the

21 Spokesman Review; and (iii) Publication Notice posted at Spokane County Jail

22 and Geiger Corrections Center for over one month prior to the deadline to object

23 and opt out. Said notice provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings

24 and of the matters set forth in the Agreement, including the proposed Settlement,

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD - 2
CV-12-05157-LRS
Proposed Order Word version

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 83 Filed 02/25/15

1 to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the

2 requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

3

4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this

4 Court hereby approves the Settlement as set forth in the Agreement and the

5 proposed Plan of Allocation as set forth in the Class Notice Form (ECF No. 65-

6 2). The Court finds that said Settlement and the Plan of Allocation are, in all

7 respects, fair, reasonable and adequate with respect to the Class, and directs that

8 the Settlement be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions set

9 forth in the Agreement and the Plan of Allocation. The Court hereby orders,

10 adjudges and decrees that the Settlement Agreement is binding on the Named

11 Plaintiff, the Class, and the Defendant according to its terms.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Incentive Award and Attorneys’ 12

Fees and Costs is hereby granted. The Court approves the payment of a $10,000 13

service award to Representative Plaintiff Betty Rucker, from the Settlement 14
Amount, which shall be first applied to outstanding LFO obligations, the terms 15
and conditions of the Agreement notwithstanding. Class Counsel are hereby 16
awarded, from the Settlement Amount, attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of 17
$125,000.00, to be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 18
Agreement.
19 6. The Court hereby dismisses this action in its entirety as to

20 Defendant, Spokane County, with prejudice and without costs.

21

7. This Order is a final judgment in the action as to all claims among

22 the Defendant, on the one hand, and the Named Plaintiff and all Class Members,

23 on the other.

24 //

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD - 3
CV-12-05157-LRS
Proposed Order Word version

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:12-cv-05157-LRS Document 83 Filed 02/25/15

1

8. Without further order of the Court, the parties may agree to

2 reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Agreement.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 25th day of February, 2015.

5

6

s/Lonny R. Suko

________________________________

7

LONNY R. SUKO

8

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD - 4
CV-12-05157-LRS
Proposed Order Word version

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 1 of 7
CLOSED,JURY,LC02,NC
Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−05157−LRS

Rucker v. Spokane County Assigned to: Judge Lonny R. Suko Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Betty Rucker and others

Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Date Terminated: 05/16/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Breean Lawrence Beggs Paukert & Troppmann PLLC 522 West Riverside Avenue Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 509−232−7760 Fax: 509−232−7762 Email: bbeggs@pt−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffry Keith Finer Center for Justice West 35 Main Street Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 509−835−5211 Fax: 509−835−3867 Email: jeffry@finer−bering.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Sean Biviano Paukert & Troppmann, PLLC 522 W Riverside Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 509−232−7760 Fax: 509−232−7762 Email: andrewbiviano@me.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Spokane County a municipal corporation

represented by Michael Alexander Patterson Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch Inc PS 2112 Third Avenue Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 206−462−6700 Fax: 206−462−6701 Email: map@pattersonbuchanan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael T Kitson Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch Inc PS 2112 Third Avenue Suite 500

Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 2 of 7
Seattle, WA 98121 206−462−6774 Fax: 206−462−6701 Email: mtk@pattersonbuchanan.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/20/2012
11/30/2012 11/30/2012 12/05/2012 12/11/2012
12/18/2012 01/22/2013 01/29/2013 02/27/2013 02/27/2013 03/13/2013 03/18/2013
08/21/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS − CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION PENDING against Spokane County ( Filing fee $ 350; Receipt # SPO017751). Summons issued. Filed by Betty Rucker. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(PL, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Alexander Patterson on behalf of Spokane County (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael T Kitson on behalf of All Defendants (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs re Spokane County. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
5 First AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS against All Defendants. Filed by Betty Rucker.(Beggs, Breean) Modified on 12/21/2012 COMPLAINT WAS REFILED UNDER ECF NO. 6 WITH CORRECTION OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS (CV, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/11/2012)
6 Praecipe filed by Betty Rucker: Re 5 Amended Complaint. Description: typographical errors par. 15 & 24. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
7 ANSWER to Complaint by All Defendants.(Patterson, Michael) Modified on 1/23/2013 JURY DEMAND INCLUDED (CV, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/22/2013)
8 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 3/13/2013 at 9:00 AM before Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Magistrate)(LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
9 Amended ANSWER to Complaint with jury demand. by All Defendants.(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
10 Joint Certificate Pursuant to LR 26.1 / LR 16.1 by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Discovery Plan)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
11 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Lonny R. Suko: Scheduling Conference held on 3/13/2013. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
12 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/28/2014 09:30 AM via Telephonic Argument before Judge Lonny R. Suko. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 4/8/2014 at 09:30 AM via Telephonic Argument before Judge Lonny R. Suko. Jury Trial set for 4/21/2014 at 01:00 PM in Spokane before Judge Lonny R. Suko. Signed by Judge Lonny R. Suko. (CV, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
13 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Andrew Sean Biviano on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 11/14/2013 at 11:00 AM in Spokane before Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
15 STATEMENT OF Material FACTS re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
16 DECLARATION by Michael T. Kitson in Support re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Page 5−40, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Page 41−51, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Page 52−56, # 4

Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 3 of 7

09/26/2013 10/15/2013 10/15/2013 10/29/2013 10/31/2013 11/01/2013
11/05/2013 11/05/2013
11/06/2013 11/12/2013 11/14/2013
11/26/2013
12/17/2013 12/17/2013 12/17/2013

Exhibit Exhibit 4 Page 57−58, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Page 59−60, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Page 61−63, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Page 64−66, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 Page 67−69, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9 Page 70−72, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10 Page 73−75, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Page 76−78, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12 Page 79−83, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13 Page 84−119, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14 Page 120−132, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15 Page 133−134)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE as to 16 Declaration in Support of Motion,, for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
18 RESPONSE to Motion re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
19 STATEMENT OF RESPONSIVE MATERIAL FACTS re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
20 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
21 MOTION to Expedite by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 11/7/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
22 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT − GRANTED 21 MOTION to Expedite filed by Betty Rucker. Motion 14 for Partial Summary Judgment is set for 11/14/2013 at 11:00 AM in Spokane. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
23 RESPONSE to Motion re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Michael T. Kitson)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
24 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael). Document sealed and no longer available. This document was previously filed at ECF No. 20 . Attorney to file the correct document. Modified on 11/6/13 to seal document(PL, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/05/2013)
25 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
26 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko: Motion Hearing held on 11/14/2013 re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County and Plaintiff's Cross Motion. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Kinney Clark) (LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
28 ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT − granting 14 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and the Plaintiffs Cross−Motion For Partial Summary Judgment 18 is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (CC, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
29 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Betty Rucker. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
30 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Rucker. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
31 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Rucker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 4 of 7

12/17/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013
12/24/2013 12/26/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013
12/30/2013 01/06/2014
01/06/2014
01/17/2014 01/17/2014 01/17/2014

32 Submission of Proposed Order Re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Rucker ; filed by Betty Rucker. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
33 MOTION to Certify Class by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
34 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 33 MOTION to Certify Class filed by All Plaintiffs. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
35 DECLARATION by Jeffry K. Finer in Support re 33 MOTION to Certify Class filed by All Plaintiffs. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
36 DECLARATION by Andrew S. Biviano in Support re 33 MOTION to Certify Class filed by All Plaintiffs. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
37 Submission of Proposed Order Re 33 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Betty Rucker ; filed by All Plaintiffs. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
39 Submission of Proposed Order Re 38 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification filed by Betty Rucker ; filed by All Plaintiffs. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
40 ORDER GRANTING 38 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. Text−only entry; no PDF will follow. This text−only entry constitutes the Court order or notice on the matter. (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
41 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Schedule by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
42 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Stipulated Motion to Amend Case Schedule by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
43 ORDER GRANTING 42 Motion to Expedite Hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. Text−only entry; no PDF will follow. This text−only entry constitutes the Court order or notice on the matter. (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
44 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULE − GRANTED 41 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Schedule filed by Spokane County. Setting Hearing on 33 MOTION to Certify Class , 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment; Motion Hearing set for 4/15/2014 at 03:30 PM in Spokane. Jury Trial is continued to 10/6/2014 at 01:00 PM in Spokane. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
45 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/8/2014 10:00 AM in Telephonic Argument. Final Telephonic Pretrial Conference/Motion Hearing set for 9/23/2014 at 09:30 AM in Telephonic Argument. Jury Trial shall commence at 1:00 p.m. on October 6, 2014, Spokane. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
46 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
47 STATEMENT OF Material FACTS re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
48 DECLARATION by Michael T. Kitson in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Kitson, Michael)

Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 5 of 7

01/17/2014 01/17/2014 01/17/2014 01/24/2014
01/24/2014 01/24/2014
01/31/2014 01/31/2014 01/31/2014 02/14/2014 03/20/2014
04/08/2014
05/08/2014 05/16/2014 08/19/2014
08/19/2014

(Entered: 01/17/2014)
49 DECLARATION by Al Rossi in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
50 DECLARATION by Scott Mason in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
51 Submission of Proposed Order Re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Rucker ; filed by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
52 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 1/30/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
53 MOTION to Expedite by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 1/30/2014 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
54 ORDER GRANTING 52 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; and GRANTING 53 Motion to Expedite Hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. Text−only entry; no PDF will follow. This text−only entry constitutes the Court order or notice on the matter. (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
55 RESPONSE to Motion re 33 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
56 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
57 STATEMENT OF (PLAINTIFF'S REPLY) FACTS re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
58 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 33 MOTION to Certify Class filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A, # 2 Appendix Appendix B)(Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
59 NOTICE RESETTING Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry;no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 33 MOTION to Certify Class , 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing currently set for 4/14/14 is reset for 4/23/2014 at 11:00 AM in Spokane before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
60 NOTICE RESETTING Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry;no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 33 MOTION to Certify Class , 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment : The Motion Hearing currently set for 4/23/14 is reset to 5/15/2014 at 2:30 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
61 NOTICE of Cancellation − By Court: Counsel informed the Court this matter is resolved; all hearing dates are vacated. Settlement paperwork forthcoming − Text entry;no PDF document. (LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
62 ORDER CLOSING FILE. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
63 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Joint Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
64 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2014 at 02:00 PM in Telephonic Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 6 of 7

08/19/2014
08/19/2014 09/17/2014 09/18/2014 09/18/2014
09/19/2014 11/13/2014 01/14/2015 01/15/2015 01/28/2015 01/28/2015 01/28/2015 01/28/2015 01/28/2015

65 DECLARATION by Michael T. Kitson in Support re 64 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Pages 5−27, # 2 Exhibit B Pages 28−36, # 3 Exhibit C Pages 37−38, # 4 Exhibit D Pages 39−51, # 5 Exhibit E Pages 52−74, # 6 Exhibit F Pages 75−99, # 7 Exhibit G Pages 100−104)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
66 ORDER GRANTING 63 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. Text−only entry; no PDF will follow. This text−only entry constitutes the Court order or notice on the matter. (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
67 NOTICE re hearing on 64 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. Counsel are directed to call the Court Conference Line: 1−877−336−1828; Access Code: 3470056; Security Code: 5157 at 2:00 p.m. on 9/18/14. (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
68 Praecipe filed by Spokane County: Re 64 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, 65 Declaration in Support of Motion,. Description: correct language as directed by court. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
69 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko: Motion Hearing held on 9/18/2014 re 64 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement filed by Spokane County. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette F. Walters) (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
70 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT − granting 64 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (CC, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: NOTICE clarifying hearing date. Pursuant to ECF No. 70, a Fairness Hearing is set for 2/25/2015 at 2:00 PM in Spokane before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (GT, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
71 Stipulated MOTION To Extend Opt Out Deadline re 70 Order on Motion to Certify Class by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2015 Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
72 ORDER GRANTING 71 Motion To Extend Opt Out Deadline re 70 Order on Motion to Certify Class by Spokane County. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. Text−only entry; no PDF will follow. This text−only entry constitutes the Court order or notice on the matter. (GT, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
73 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2015 at 02:00 PM in Richland Courtroom 189 before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
74 DECLARATION by Andrew S. Biviano in Support re 73 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award filed by All Plaintiffs. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
75 DECLARATION by Breean L. Beggs in Support re 73 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
76 DECLARATION by Jeffry K. Finer in Support re 73 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award filed by All Plaintiffs. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
77 Joint MOTION for Settlement of Class Action (Final Approval) by Spokane County. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2015 at 02:00 PM in Richland Courtroom 189 before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-05157-LRS As of: 11/21/2016 08:48 AM PST 7 of 7

01/28/2015 01/28/2015 01/29/2015
02/05/2015 02/25/2015 02/25/2015

78 DECLARATION by Jennifer M. Keough in Support re 77 Joint MOTION for Settlement of Class Action (Final Approval) filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, pp.. 4 − 7, # 2 Exhibit B, pp. 8 − 14)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
79 DECLARATION by Michael T. Kitson in Support re 77 Joint MOTION for Settlement of Class Action (Final Approval) filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, pp. 4 − 5, # 2 Exhibit B, pp. 6 − 8)(Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
80 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 77 Joint MOTION for Settlement of Class Action (Final Approval), and 73 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Incentive Award : Motion Hearing RESET for 2/25/2015 at 2:00 PM Spokane Courtroom 755 before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. Change in location only. (GT, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
81 DECLARATION of Colette Saunders of Service re 79 Declaration in Support of Motion, 78 Declaration in Support of Motion, by Spokane County. (Kitson, Michael) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko: Motion Hearing held on 2/25/2015. (Reported/Recorded by: Mark A. Snover) (GT, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
83 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOITON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARD granting 73 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 77 Motion for Settlement Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/25/2015)