Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page1 of 24

1 JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN# 69888) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
2 Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
3 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: (510) 839-5200
4 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com
5 JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)
6 Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue
7 Berkeley, California 94705 Telephone: (510) 848-4752
8 Facsimile: (510) 848-5819 Email: jbcofc@aol.com
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13

14 JANE SMITH NO. 1;

) CASE NO.

JANE SMITH NO. 2;

)

15 JANE SMITH NO. 3;

)

JANE SMITH NO. 4; and

)

16 JANE SMITH NO. 5, individually and) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,

on behalf of persons similarly ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

17 situated,

) RELIEF

) (42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

18

)

Plaintiffs,

) CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION

19

)

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

20 vs.

)

)

21 CITY OF OAKLAND;

)

RICHARD VALERGA, DOES 1-100,

)

22 inclusive,

)

)

23

Defendants.

)

)

24

JURISDICTION

25

1. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

26

Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343.

27

28 COMPLAINT

1

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page2 of 24

1 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
2 2. The claims alleged herein arose in the City of
3 Oakland, State of California. Therefore, venue and assignment
4 lies in the United States District Court for the Northern
5 District of California, San Francisco or Oakland Divisions. 28
6 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).
7 PARTIES
8 3. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 1, is an Asian female.
9 4. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 2, is an Asian female.
10 5. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 3, is an Asian female.
11 6. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 4, is an Asian female.
12 7. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 5, is an Asian female.
13 8. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND is, and at all times
14 herein mentioned was, a municipal corporation duly organized and
15 existing under the laws of the State of California.
16 9. Defendant RICHARD VALERGA (hereinafter Defendant
17 VALERGA) was at all times herein mentioned, a Police Officer for
18 Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and is sued herein in his individual
19 and official capacities.
20 10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or
21 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100,
22 inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious
23 names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true
24 names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
25 and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that
26 each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable for
27

28 COMPLAINT

2

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page3 of 24

the incident, injuries and damages hereinafter set forth, and 1
that each of said defendants proximately caused said incidents, 2
injuries and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of 3
duty, negligent supervision, management or control, battery, 4
violation of constitutional rights, violation of public policy, 5
false arrests, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or 6
imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally 7
or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, ownership, 8
entrustment, custody, care or control or upon any other act or 9
omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this complaint to 10
insert further charging allegations when such facts are 11
ascertained. 12
11. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and 13
each of them, acted within the course and scope of their 14
employment for the CITY OF OAKLAND. 15
12. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, 16
Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of authority 17
and/or under color of law. 18
13. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, 19
Defendants, and each of them, acted as the agent, servant, 20
employee and/or in concert with each of said other Defendants 21
herein. 22
STATEMENT OF FACTS 23
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
24 allege that defendants VALERGA and/or DOE 1-50, while acting in
25 his capacity as an on duty, sworn member of the CITY OF OAKLAND
26 Police Department, engaged in a repeated custom, policy, pattern
27

28 COMPLAINT

3

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page4 of 24

or practice of singling out women of Asian descent for traffic 1
stops and subjecting them to sexual harassment and/or other 2
disparate and discriminatory treatment based on their gender, 3
race and/or ethnicity, including, but not limited to, 4
inappropriate and unwanted physical contact. 5
15. The plaintiffs and class members are women of 6
Asian descent that were subjected to the violation of their civil 7
rights by defendants VALERGA, the CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 18
100 and/or each of them. 9
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 1 10
16. In or about late January or early February 2005,
11 plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 1, was driving in the vicinity of East
12 14th Street in Oakland, California, when she was pulled over and
13 directed to stop her vehicle by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
14 without reasonable or probable cause to believe that the
15 plaintiff had committed any traffic violation or crime.
16 17. When the plaintiff asked defendant VALERGA or DOE
17 1 why he had stopped her, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the
18 plaintiff he wanted to speak with her.
19 18. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 then ordered plaintiff
20 JANE SMITH NO. 1 to get out of her car and accompany him to his
21 police vehicle. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 directed the
22 plaintiff to sit in the front seat of his car.
23 19. Reasonably believing that she was not free to
24 leave and was required to follow defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s
25 orders, plaintiff sat in the front seat of the police vehicle.
26 20. Once plaintiff was seated in the patrol vehicle,
27

28 COMPLAINT

4

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page5 of 24

defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff for her telephone 1
number and ordered the plaintiff to call his cell phone number 2
from her phone so that he could save her telephone number to his 3
cell phone. 4
21. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that 5
he wanted to take her picture and told her words to the effect 6
that she was pretty. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 then proceeded 7
to take the plaintiff’s photograph with his cell phone. 8
22. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that 9
she needed to smile and took more photographs of the plaintiff. 10
Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also attempted to touch the plaintiff, 11
but she pulled away from him and told him not to touch her. 12
23. The plaintiff repeatedly asked defendant VALERGA 13
or DOE 1 if she could go and he told the plaintiff that she could 14
not. 15
24. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that 16
he wanted to take a photograph of the plaintiff with her sweater 17
opened. Reasonably believing that she could not refuse and that 18
defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 would not allow her to leave the car, 19
plaintiff opened the front of her sweater and defendant VALERGA 20
or DOE 1 took another photograph. 21
25. The plaintiff continued to ask defendant VALERGA 22
or DOE if she could go and defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 refused to 23
allow the plaintiff to leave his vehicle. 24
26. Instead, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the 25
plaintiff a series of personal questions having nothing to do 26
with any legitimate law enforcement purpose. This included 27

28 COMPLAINT

5

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page6 of 24

asking the plaintiff where she worked and telling her that he 1
wanted to visit her at work. 2
27. During this entire time, the plaintiff reasonably 3
believed that she was not free to leave and was extremely 4
frightened and upset about defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s 5
conduct. 6
28. While the plaintiff was sitting on the front seat 7
of defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s police vehicle, another City of 8
Oakland Police Officer (DOES 2-50 and/or each of them) pulled up 9
and observed the plaintiff in the car. Thereafter, defendant 10
VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed the plaintiff to leave the vehicle and 11
did not issue any citation to the plaintiff for any alleged 12
traffic violation or crime. 13
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 14
alleges that defendants DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, although 15
aware that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 had civilians sitting in 16
the front seat of his vehicle and/or had other knowledge of 17
defendant VALERGA or DOE’s misconduct, failed to document, report 18
or otherwise take any or appropriate action to ensure that 19
defendant VALERGA and/or DOES 1-50 did not violate the rights of 20
citizens, such as the plaintiffs. 21
30. Plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 1 is informed and 22
believes and thereon alleges that after she related what occurred 23
to her sister, plaintiff’s sister reported the incident to 24
defendant CITY OF OAKLAND’s Police Department shortly thereafter. 25
31. Nevertheless, plaintiff is informed and believes 26
and thereon alleges that defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 27

28 COMPLAINT

6

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page7 of 24

51-100 and/or each of them, failed to take appropriate remedial 1
action and, as a result thereof, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was 2
allowed to continue to engage in his pattern and practice of 3
violating the rights of Asian females while he was working as a 4
police officer for the CITY OF OALKAND. 5
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 2 6
32. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 2, was also subjected to
7 a traffic stop by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 on or about February
8 5, 2005 while defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was acting in his
9 capacity as a member of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department.
10 33. At that time, plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 2 was
11 driving her automobile in the vicinity of 23rd Avenue and 15th
12 Street in Oakland, California. Plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 2 had
13 her two minor children sitting in the back seat of her vehicle.
14 34. After making a turn onto 15th Street, defendant
15 VALERGA or DOE 1 pulled up behind her, put on his siren and
16 directed plaintiff to pull her car over without reasonable or
17 probable cause to believe that the plaintiff committed any
18 traffic violation or crime.
19 35. The plaintiff pulled her vehicle over and stopped.
20 Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff for her driver’s
21 license and ordered her to accompany him to his police vehicle,
22 leaving the plaintiff’s two minor children alone in the
23 plaintiff’s car.
24 36. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff a
25 series of questions unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement
26 purposes, including whether she was married and where she worked.
27

28 COMPLAINT

7

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page8 of 24

37. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 touched the plaintiff’s 1
hands, commented that her hands were soft and asked plaintiff for 2
her phone number. 3
38. During this entire time, plaintiff was frightened 4
and reasonably believed that she could not leave the police 5
vehicle. 6
39. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 returned 7
the plaintiff’s driver’s license to her, allowed her to leave the 8
car and did not issue any citation to the plaintiff for any 9
alleged traffic violation or other crime. 10
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 3 11
40. In or about approximately late February 2005,
12 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 3 was driving her vehicle on 14th
13 Avenue in Oakland California near Highland Hospital when she
14 was directed by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 to pull over.
15 41. After directing the plaintiff to give him her
16 driver’s license, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the
17 plaintiff to sit on the front seat of his CITY OF OAKLAND
18 Police Vehicle. Once in the police car, Defendant VALERGA or
19 DOE 1 asked the plaintiff for her home telephone and cell phone
20 number.
21 42. While seated in the police vehicle, defendant
22 VALERGA or DOE 1 grabbed the plaintiff’s hand and told her that
23 her hands were soft. Plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
24 that she did not want him to touch her, but he persisted.
25 43. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also asked plaintiff
26 a series of personal questions unrelated to any legitimate law
27

28 COMPLAINT

8

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page9 of 24

enforcement purpose. This included asking where she worked and 1
telling the plaintiff that he wanted to visit her at work. 2
44. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff to 3
kiss him. When she did not, he kissed the plaintiff on her 4
lips. Shocked, the plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 5
not to kiss her. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the 6
plaintiff whether she liked being kissed by him and she told 7
him no. 8
45. Despite being told by plaintiff that she did not 9
want him to kiss her, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 kissed the 10
plaintiff again on the lips. 11
46. During this entire time, the plaintiff was 12
frightened and reasonably believed that she could not leave the 13
police vehicle. 14
47. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed 15
the plaintiff to leave the car and did not issue the plaintiff 16
a citation for any traffic violation or other crime. 17
48. The following day, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 18
called the plaintiff on the telephone and said that he wanted 19
to take her out for lunch. The plaintiff declined. 20
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 4 21
49. In or about late 2004 or the first half of 2005,
22 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 4 was driving her car westbound on
23 McArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of 38th Avenue in Oakland,
24 California. The plaintiff had her two minor children in the
25 vehicle with her.
26 50. At approximately 35th Avenue, the plaintiff
27

28 COMPLAINT

9

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page10 of 24

noticed that there was a CITY OF OAKLAND Police car following 1
her vehicle. 2
51. After the plaintiff turned onto 35th Avenue, she 3
continued to Kansas Street, where she made another turn onto 4
Kansas Street. The plaintiff noticed that the police vehicle 5
was continuing to follow her. 6
52. Eventually, the plaintiff parked her car across 7
the street from her home on Kansas Street. Defendant VALERGA 8
or DOE 1, who had been driving the CITY OF OAKLAND Police car 9
which had been following her, parked the police vehicle on 10
Kansas Street. 11
53. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff 12
to get out of her car and to go to his police vehicle without 13
any reasonable or probable cause to believe that the plaintiff 14
had committed any vehicle code violation or other crime. 15
54. The plaintiff told her children to get out of 16
the car and go to their home. 17
55. Reasonably believing she was not free to leave, 18
the plaintiff went to defendant VALERA’S or DOE 1’S police 19
vehicle where he directed her to sit on the front passenger 20
seat. 21
56. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 directed the 22
plaintiff to produce her driver’s license and asked for her 23
telephone number. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 repeatedly 24
attempted to touch the plaintiff’s hand, but she pulled away 25
from him and told him not to touch her. 26
57. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 persisted in his 27

28 COMPLAINT

10

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page11 of 24

attempts to touch the plaintiff’s hands and remarked to the 1
plaintiff that her hands were cold. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 2
asked the plaintiff if he could call her for a date and she 3
told him no. 4
58. During this entire time, the plaintiff was 5
frightened and reasonably believed that she was not allowed to 6
leave the police car. 7
59. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed 8
the plaintiff to leave his police vehicle and did not issue the 9
plaintiff a citation for any alleged traffic violation or other 10
crime. 11
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 5 12
60. In or about approximately 2004 or 2005,
13 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 5 was driving in the vicinity of
14 Fruitvale and International Boulevard in Oakland, California,
15 when she was directed to pull her vehicle over by defendant
16 VALERGA or DOE 1.
17 61. After taking the plaintiff’s driver’s license,
18 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff to sit in the
19 front seat of his police vehicle.
20 62. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff a
21 series of personal questions unrelated to any legitimate law
22 enforcement purpose, including where she went to school and
23 whether she had a boyfriend.
24 63. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 took the plaintiff’s
25 hand and held it for a long time and asked her for her cell
26 phone number. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 entered the
27

28 COMPLAINT

11

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page12 of 24

plaintiff’s cell phone number into his cell phone. 1
64. During this entire time, the plaintiff was 2
frightened and reasonably believed that she was not allowed to 3
leave defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s vehicle. 4
65. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the 5
plaintiff that she could leave, but retained her driver’s 6
license, telling the plaintiff words to the effect that he 7
wished to keep it for the memories. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 8
did not issue the plaintiff a citation for any alleged traffic 9
violation or other crime. 10
66. Subsequently, plaintiffs are informed and 11
believe and thereon allege that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was 12
charged by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office with 13
violations of the California Penal Code in connection with his 14
traffic stops of Asian females. Plaintiffs are informed and 15
believe and thereon allege that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 16
pleaded no contest to some of those charges. 17
67. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 18
allege that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was able to engage in a 19
custom, policy, pattern and/or practice of inappropriate 20
conduct and civil rights violations against Asian female 21
motorists as a result of longstanding customs, policies and/or 22
practices of the CITY OF OAKLAND which encouraged, authorized, 23
condoned and/or acquiesced in sexual harassment and other 24
unlawful conduct by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 25
Department. 26
68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 27

28 COMPLAINT

12

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page13 of 24

allege that said abuses of power by CITY OF OAKLAND Police 1
Officers in past years have included, but are not limited to: 2
a. Rape, sexual harassment (Officer Bernard Riley); 3
b. Visiting a brothel while on duty (Officers Eric 4
Riccholt and Mark Neely, Jr.); 5
c. Stalking, sexual harassment and retaliation 6
against a subordinate (Lt. Antonio Romero); 7
d. Quid pro quo sexual harassment (Officer Kent 8
McNabb); 9
e. Sexual harassment (Officer John Mendez); 10
f. Kidnapping, assault and battery, drug planting, 11
fabricating evidence and reports, false arrests and false 12
imprisonment, conspiracy (See, e.g., Delphine Allen v. City of 13
Oakland, et al., Master File No. C00-4599 TEH); 14
g. Violation of civil rights resulting in a jury 15
award totaling more than $2 million dollars in damages to 16
plaintiffs against OPD officers Clyde Sims, Robert Chenault, 17
Michael Sitterud (Bari/Cherny v. FBI, et al.); 18
h. Stewart v. City of Oakland, et al. (Sexual 19
harassment and sexual assault of a civilian by Oakland Police 20
officer); 21
i. Keller-Dean v. City of Oakland, Gary Romero, et 22
al., USDC Case No. C00-01930 MHP (sexual assault/sexual 23
harassment of a civilian by an Oakland Police Officer). 24
69. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and 25
thereon alleges that the repeated abuse of authority by CITY OF 26
OAKLAND Police Officers is the product of a culture of 27

28 COMPLAINT

13

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page14 of 24

tolerance within the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. This 1
culture is rooted in the deliberate indifference of high 2
ranking Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND officials, including, but not 3
limited to Defendants DOES 51-100, and/or other high ranking 4
officials and/or supervisors, and each of them, individually 5
and/or acting in concert with one another, who have routinely 6
acquiesced in misconduct of members of the CITY OF OAKLAND 7
Police Department, ratified such misconduct and/or who have 8
otherwise failed to take the measures necessary to prevent and 9
curtail such misconduct. 10
70. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 11
thereon allege that they suffered the violation of their 12
constitutional rights and otherwise incurred damages as alleged 13
herein as a result of customs, policies, patterns and/or 14
practices of Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and DOES 51-100, and 15
each of them, which have encouraged, authorized, condoned, 16
ratified and otherwise permitted such misconduct to continue 17
and flourish within the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. 18
71. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 19
thereon allege that said customs, policies, patterns and 20
practices have included the repeated failure by Defendant CITY 21
OF OAKLAND and its high ranking officials to fully implement 22
remedial action intended to prevent such misconduct from 23
continuing to occur within the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 24
Department. 25
72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 26
allege that they suffered the violation of their constitutional 27

28 COMPLAINT

14

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page15 of 24

rights as a result of deliberate indifference of Defendants 1
CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or other high ranking Police 2
Department officials and/or supervisors, with regard to the 3
need for more or different policies, training, supervision 4
and/or discipline of its police officers, including, but not 5
limited to, Defendant VALERGA and/or DOES 1-50, and/or each of 6
them. 7
73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 8
allege that the subject incidents were caused as a result of 9
the aforesaid customs, policies, patterns, practices and/or 10
deliberate indifference by Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 2011
10 and/or each of them. 12
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13
74. Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to
14 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2) to allege claims for damages,
15 injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and
16 all persons similarly situated. The proposed class consists of
17 all females of Asian descent who were subjected to traffic
18 stops by defendants Richard Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 while they
19 were working as members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police
20 Department that were not supported by probable cause; all
21 females of Asian descent who were subjected to discriminatory
22 or disparate treatment during traffic stops by defendants
23 Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 while they were working as members of
24 the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department because of their
25 ethnicity, race and/or gender; and all females of Asian descent
26 who were subjected to sexual harassment by defendants Richard
27

28 COMPLAINT

15

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page16 of 24

Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 while they were working as members of 1
the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. 2
75. This case satisfies the prerequisites of a Rule 3
23(b(2) class action. 4
76. The class is so numerous that joinder of all 5
members is impracticable. Plaintiffs do not know the identities 6
or exact number of all class members. Based on newspaper 7
accounts, it appears that defendant Valerga began his employment 8
with the City of Oakland Police Department in approximately 1999 9
and, based on his tenure with the Oakland Police Department and 10
defendant Valerga’s repeated pattern and practice of misconduct, 11
the membership of the class is likely to be numerous. 12
77. There are questions of law and fact common to all 13
members of the class, because all class members have been 14
adversely affected by the challenged actions of the defendants. 15
Common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: 16
whether defendant Richard Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 and/or each of 17
them engaged in a practice of making traffic stops of Asian 18
females without probable cause; whether defendants Richard 19
Valerga and/or Does 1-50 and/or each of them engaged in a 20
practice of using traffic stops as a pretext to sexually harass 21
Asian females; whether defendants Richard Valerga and/or Does 122
50 and/or each of them engaged in a practice of singling out 23
Asian females for discriminatory and disparate treatment because 24
of their race, ethnicity and/or gender while they were working as 25
members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department; whether the 26
CITY OF OAKLAND maintained customs, policies, patterns and 27

28 COMPLAINT

16

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page17 of 24

practices which caused and/or contributed to the violation of the 1
plaintiffs’ rights; and whether the CITY OF OAKLAND, its police 2
department and/or city officials and/or supervisors failed to 3
properly train and supervise members of the CITY OF OAKLAND 4
Police Department which caused and/or contributed to the 5
violation of the plaintiffs’ rights. 6
78. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of 7
the claims of the class. The claims of the class members arise 8
from the same type of conduct, customs, policies or practices 9
that have resulted in damages to the class representatives and 10
are based on the same legal theories. 11
79. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and 12
adequately protect the interests of the class because they are, 13
and were, subject to the policies, customs, patterns and 14
practices complained of herein, and have no interests 15
antagonistic to other members of the class. In addition, 16
plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in litigating federal civil 17
rights cases and class actions, including federal civil rights 18
actions against the CITY OF OAKLAND and the CITY OF OAKLAND 19
Police Department. 20
80. The defendants have acted and/or have failed to 21
act on grounds generally applicable to the class, and an award of 22
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief for the class as a 23
whole is appropriate. 24
81. The prosecution of separate actions by individual 25
members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or 26
incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, thereby 27

28 COMPLAINT

17

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page18 of 24

making a class action the superior method of adjudicating the 1
controversy. 2
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES AND RELIEF SOUGHT 3
82. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of
4 defendants as alleged in this Complaint, plaintiffs, and each
5 of them, suffered damages and/or injuries, including, but not
6 limited to, pain, suffering and emotional distress.
7 83. Plaintiffs will also be entitled to recover
8 their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to their
9 general and compensatory damages pursuant to statute.
10 84. The conduct of defendant VALERGA and/or DOES 1-
11 100 and/or each of them, was intentional, oppressive,
12 malicious, fraudulent and/or done with a conscious and/or
13 reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.
14 Therefore, plaintiffs will be entitled to recover punitive
15 damages in amounts to be determined according to proof.
16 85. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, conduct
17 and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result
18 in irreparable injury to plaintiffs, including but not limited to
19 violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
20 Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to
21 address the wrongs described herein. The plaintiffs and class
22 members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional
23 rights in the vicinity of the City of Oakland and in other public
24 places in the City of Oakland. Defendants’ conduct described
25 herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs
26 with respect to their ability to exercise their constitutional
27

28 COMPLAINT

18

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page19 of 24

rights in the present and future, and with respect to their

1

physical security and safety. Defendants’ conduct described

2

herein has also created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among

3

plaintiffs and class members with respect to their exercise of

4

their right to move freely about the public streets, without

5

being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures and/or

6

discriminatory and disparate treatment due to their ethnicity,

7

race and/or gender.

8

86. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from

9

this court, to ensure that plaintiffs and persons similarly

10

situated will not suffer violations of their rights from

11

defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and

12

practices as described herein.

13

87. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs

14

and defendants in that plaintiffs contend that the policies,

15

practices and conduct of defendants alleged herein are unlawful

16

and unconstitutional, whereas plaintiffs are informed and believe

17

that defendants contend that said policies, practices and conduct

18

are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of

19

rights with respect to this controversy.

20

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

21

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)

23

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS RICHARD VALERGA, DOES 1-50)

24

88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-

25 alleges herein Paragraphs 1 through 87.

26

89. In doing the acts complained of herein,

27 defendants VALERGA and/or DOES 1-19 and/or each of them, did

28 COMPLAINT

19

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page20 of 24

act under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs, the class

1

members and/or each of them as alleged heretofore of certain

2

constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited

3

to:

4

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

5

seizures;

6

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

7

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

8

process of law.

9

90. Said rights are substantive guarantees under

10

the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

11

Constitution.

12

91. As a result of the violation of their

13

constitutional rights by defendants VALERGA and/or DOES 1-50

14

and/or each of them, plaintiffs, the class members and/or each

15

of them sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged

16

heretofore in this Complaint.

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set

18

forth.

19

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100)

21

92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-

22

allege herein Paragraphs 1 through 91.

23

93. As against Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and/or

24

DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, individually and/or in their

25

capacities as official policy-maker(s) for the CITY OF

26

OAKLAND, the plaintiffs further allege that the acts and/or

27

28 COMPLAINT

20

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page21 of 24

omissions alleged in the Complaint herein are indicative and 1
representative of a repeated course of conduct by members of 2
the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department tantamount to a custom, 3
policy or repeated practice of condoning and tacitly 4
encouraging the abuse of police authority, and disregard for 5
the constitutional rights of citizens, such as plaintiffs. 6
94. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 7
thereon allege that the acts and/or omissions alleged herein 8
are the proximate result of a custom, policy, pattern or 9
practice of deliberate indifference by Defendants CITY OF 10
OAKLAND, DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, to the repeated 11
violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by CITY OF 12
OAKLAND police officers, which have included, but are not 13
limited to, repeated acts of sexual misconduct while on duty, 14
unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrests, false 15
imprisonments, the repeated denial of equal protection of the 16
law based on race and/or gender and other repeated violations 17
of the constitutional rights of citizens in Oakland. 18
95. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 19
thereon allege that the damages sustained as alleged herein 20
were the proximate result customs, policies and/or practices 21
which included, but were not limited to, the failure to 22
adequately or appropriately hold officers accountable for 23
their misconduct, the failure to properly and fairly 24
investigate complaints about officers’ misconduct, the failure 25
to enact or adopt policies to ensure adequate and/or 26
appropriate oversight of officers to prevent continuing 27

28 COMPLAINT

21

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page22 of 24

violations of the rights of citizens, the failure to properly 1
train and/or discipline officers, the failure to adequately or 2
properly supervise officers, the failure to adopt and fully 3
implement an appropriate early warning system, policies and 4
customs which encouraged officers to target certain groups of 5
citizens for unreasonable search and seizure and/or other 6
customs, and/or policies which caused and/or contributed to, 7
the violation of the rights of citizens by members of the CITY 8
OF OAKLAND Police Department. 9
96. The aforementioned deliberate indifference, 10
customs, policies or practices of Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, 11
DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, resulted in the deprivation 12
of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and class 13
members, including, but not limited to, the following: 14
(a) the right not to be deprived of liberty or property 15
without Due Process of Law; 16
(b) the right to be free from unreasonable searches 17
and/or seizures; and/or, 18
(c) the right to equal protection of the law. 19
97. Said rights are substantive guarantees under 20
the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 21
Constitution. 22
98. As a result of the violation of their 23
constitutional rights by defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and/or 24
DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, plaintiffs and the class 25
members and/or each of them, sustained the injuries and/or 26
damages as alleged heretofore in this Complaint. 27

28 COMPLAINT

22

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page23 of 24

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set 1
forth. 2
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 3
99. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial. 4
PRAYER 5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against 6
defendants, and each of them, as follows: 7
1. For an order certifying the class defined herein 8
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2); 9
2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief 10
restraining defendants from engaging in the unlawful and 11
unconstitutional actions complained of above; 12
3. For a declaratory judgment that defendants’ conduct 13
complained of herein was a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under 14
the Constitution and laws of the United States and California; 15
4. For the individual named plaintiffs, general and 16
compensatory damages to be determined according to proof; 17
5. For punitive and exemplary damages in amounts to be 18
determined according to proof as to the individual defendants; 19
6. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 20
and/or other authorities in amounts to be determined according to 21
proof; 22
7. For costs of suit; 23
8. For pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by 24
law; 25
9. For such other and further relief as the Court may 26
deem just and proper. 27

28 COMPLAINT

23

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document1 Filed11/20/06 Page24 of 24

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 1
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies 2
that as of this date, other than the named parties, there is 3
no such interest to report. 4

5 Dated: November 20, 2006
6
7

_________/s/_______________ JOHN L. BURRIS Attorney for Plaintiffs

8 DATED: November 20, 2006 9

__________/s/______________ JAMES B. CHANIN Attorney for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 COMPLAINT

24

 
 Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page1 of 48

1 JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN# 69888) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
2 Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
3 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: (510) 839-5200
4 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 5 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

6 JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043) Law Offices of James B. Chanin
7 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California 94705
8 Telephone: (510) 848-4752
Facsimile: (510) 848-5819 9 Email: jbcofc@aol.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 JANE SMITH NO. 1;
14 JANE SMITH NO. 2; JANE SMITH NO. 3;
15 JANE SMITH NO. 4; JANE SMITH NO. 5,
16 JANE SMITH NO. 6, JANE SMITH NO. 7,
17 JANE SMITH NO. 8, JANE SMITH NO. 9,
18 JANE SMITH NO. 10, 19 JANE SMITH NO. 11,
JANE SMITH NO. 12, 20 JANE SMITH NO. 13,
JANE SMITH NO. 14, 21 JANE SMITH NO. 15,
JANE SMITH NO. 16,
22
Plaintiffs, 23 vs.

24 CITY OF OAKLAND; RICHARD VALERGA, DOES 1-100,
25 inclusive,

26

Defendants.

27

) CASE NO. C06-07171 MJJ ) ) ) SECOND AMENDED ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE ) RELIEF ) (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) ) ) CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page2 of 48

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

INTRADISTRICT 4

ASSIGNMENT

5

2. The claims alleged herein arose in the City of

6 Oakland, State of California. Therefore, venue and assignment

7 lies in the United States District Court for the Northern

8 District of California, San Francisco or Oakland Divisions. 28

9 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).

10 PARTIES

11

3. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 1, is an Asian female.

12 4. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 2, is an Asian female.

13 5. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 3, is an Asian female.
14 6. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 4, is an Asian female.
15 7. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 5, is an Asian female.
16
8. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 6, is an Asian female. 17
9. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 7, is an Asian female. 18

19

10. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 8, is an Asian female.

20

11. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 9, is an Asian female.

21

12. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 10, is an Asian female.

22

13. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 11, is an Asian female.

23

14. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 12, is an Asian female.

24

15. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 13, is an Asian female.

25

16. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 14, is an Asian female.

26

17. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 15, is an Asian female.

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page3 of 48

18. Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 16, is an Asian female. 1
19. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND is, and at all times 2
herein mentioned was, a municipal corporation duly organized and 3

existing under the laws of the State of California. 4

5

20. Defendant RICHARD VALERGA (hereinafter Defendant

6 VALERGA) was at all times herein mentioned, a Police Officer for

7 Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and is sued herein in his individual

8 and official capacities.

9

21. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or

10 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100,

11 inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious
12 names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true
13 names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
14 and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that
15 each of the Doe defendants is legally responsible and liable for
16 the incident, injuries and damages hereinafter set forth, and
17
that each of said defendants proximately caused said incidents, 18
19 injuries and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of

20 duty, negligent supervision, management or control, battery,

21 violation of constitutional rights, violation of public policy,

22 false arrests, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or

23 imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally

24 or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, ownership,

25 entrustment, custody, care or control or upon any other act or 26 omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this complaint to 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page4 of 48

insert further charging allegations when such facts are 1
ascertained. 2
22. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and 3
each of them, acted within the course and scope of their 4
5 employment for the CITY OF OAKLAND.

6

23. I n doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein,

7 Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of authority

8 and/or under color of law.

9

24. I n doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein,

10 Defendants, and each of them, acted as the agent, servant,

11 employee and/or in concert with each of said other Defendants
12 herein.
13 STATEMENT OF FACTS
14 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
15 allege that defendants VALERGA and/or DOE 1-50, while acting in
16 his capacity as an on duty, sworn member of the CITY OF OAKLAND
17
Police Department, engaged in a repeated custom, policy, pattern 18
19 or practice of singling out women of Asian descent for traffic

20 stops and subjecting them to sexual harassment and/or other

21 disparate and discriminatory treatment based on their gender,

22 race and/or ethnicity, including, but not limited to,

23 inappropriate and unwanted physical contact.

24

26. The plaintiffs and class members are women of

25 Asian descent that were subjected to the violation of their civil 26 rights by defendants VALERGA, the CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES 127

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page5 of 48

100 and/or each of them. 1
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 1 2
27. In or about late January or early February 2005, 3
plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 1, was driving in the vicinity of East 4
5 14th Street in Oakland, California, when she was pulled over and
6 directed to stop her vehicle by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
7 without reasonable or probable cause to believe that the

8 plaintiff had committed any traffic violation or crime.

9

28.

When the plaintiff asked defendant VALERGA or DOE

10 1 why he had stopped her, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the

11 plaintiff he wanted to speak with her.

12 29.

Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 then ordered plaintiff

13 JANE SMITH NO. 1 to get out of her car and accompany him to his
14 police vehicle. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 directed the
15 plaintiff to sit in the front seat of his car.
16
30. Reasonably believing that she was not free to 17
leave and was required to follow defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s 18

19 orders, plaintiff sat in the front seat of the police vehicle.

20

31. Once plaintiff was seated in the patrol vehicle,

21 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff for her telephone

22 number and ordered the plaintiff to call his cell phone number

23 from her phone so that he could save her telephone number to his

24 cell phone.

25

32.

Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that

26 he wanted to take her picture and told her words to the effect

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page6 of 48

that she was pretty. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 then proceeded 1

to take the plaintiff’s photograph with his cell phone. 2

33. 3

Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that

she needed to smile and took more photographs of the plaintiff. 4

5 Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also attempted to touch the plaintiff,

6 but she pulled away from him and told him not to touch her.

7

34. The plaintiff repeatedly asked defendant VALERGA

8 or DOE 1 if she could go and he told the plaintiff that she could

9 not.

10

35.

Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that

11 he wanted to take a photograph of the plaintiff with her sweater
12 opened. Reasonably believing that she could not refuse and that
13 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 would not allow her to leave the car,
14 plaintiff opened the front of her sweater and defendant VALERGA
15 or DOE 1 took another photograph.
16 36. The plaintiff continued to ask defendant VALERGA
17
or DOE if she could go and defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 refused to 18
19 allow the plaintiff to leave his vehicle.

20

37. Instead, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the

21 plaintiff a series of personal questions having nothing to do

22 with any legitimate law enforcement purpose. This included

23 asking the plaintiff where she worked and telling her that he

24 wanted to visit her at work.

25

38.

During this entire time, the plaintiff reasonably

26 believed that she was not free to leave and was extremely

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page7 of 48

frightened and upset about defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s 1

conduct. 2

39. 3

While the plaintiff was sitting on the front seat

of defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s police vehicle, another City of 4

5 Oakland Police Officer (DOES 2-50 and/or each of them) pulled up

6 and observed the plaintiff in the car. Thereafter, defendant

7 VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed the plaintiff to leave the vehicle and

8 did not issue any citation to the plaintiff for any alleged

9 traffic violation or crime.

10

40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon

11 alleges that defendants DOES 2-50 and/or each of them, although

12 aware that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 had civilians sitting in

13 the front seat of his vehicle and/or had other knowledge of
14 defendant VALERGA or DOE’s misconduct, failed to document, report
15 or otherwise take any or appropriate action to ensure that
16
defendant VALERGA and/or DOES 1-50 did not violate the rights of 17
citizens, such as the plaintiffs. 18

19

41. Plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 1 is informed and

20 believes and thereon alleges that after she related what occurred

21 to her sister, plaintiff’s sister reported the incident to

22 defendant CITY OF OAKLAND’s Police Department shortly thereafter.

23

42. Nevertheless, plaintiff is informed and believes

24 and thereon alleges that defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and/or DOES

25 51-100 and/or each of them, failed to take appropriate remedial 26 action and, as a result thereof, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page8 of 48

allowed to continue to engage in his pattern and practice of 1
violating the rights of Asian females while he was working as a 2
police officer for the CITY OF OALKAND. 3
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 2 4

5

43.

Plaintiff, JANE SMITH NO. 2, was also subjected to

6 a traffic stop by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 on or about February

7 5, 2005 while defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was acting in his

8 capacity as a member of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department.

9

44. At that time, plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 2 was

10 driving her automobile in the vicinity of 23 rd Avenue and 15 th

11 Street in Oakland, California. Plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 2 had

12 her two minor children sitting in the back seat of her vehicle.

13

45. After making a turn onto 15 th Street, defendant

14 VALERGA or DOE 1 pulled up behind her, put on his siren and

15

directed plaintiff to pull her car over without reasonable or 16

probable cause to believe that the plaintiff committed any 17

traffic violation or crime. 18

19

46.

The plaintiff pulled her vehicle over and stopped.

20 Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff for her driver’s

21 license and ordered her to accompany him to his police vehicle,

22 leaving the plaintiff’s two minor children alone in the

23 plaintiff’s car.

24

47. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff a

25 series of questions unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement 26 purposes, including whether she was married and where she worked. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page9 of 48

48.

Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 touched the plaintiff’s

1

hands, commented that her hands were soft and asked plaintiff for 2

her phone number. 3

49. 4

During this entire time, plaintiff was frightened

5 and reasonably believed that she could not leave the police

6 vehicle.

7

50. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 returned

8 the plaintiff’s driver’s license to her, allowed her to leave the

9 car and did not issue any citation to the plaintiff for any

10 alleged traffic violation or other crime.

11

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 3

12 51. In or about approximately late February 2005,

13 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 3 was driving her vehicle on 14th
14 Avenue in Oakland California near Highland Hospital when she
15 was directed by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 to pull over.
16
52. After directing the plaintiff to give him her 17

driver’s license, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the 18

19 plaintiff to sit on the front seat of his CITY OF OAKLAND

20 Police Vehicle. Once in the police car, Defendant VALERGA or

21 DOE 1 asked the plaintiff for her home telephone and cell phone

22 number.

23

53. While seated in the police vehicle, defendant

24 VALERGA or DOE 1 grabbed the plaintiff’s hand and told her that

25 her hands were soft. Plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 26 that she did not want him to touch her, but he persisted. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page10 of 48

54. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also asked plaintiff 1
a series of personal questions unrelated to any legitimate law 2
enforcement purpose. This included asking where she worked and 3

telling the plaintiff that he wanted to visit her at work. 4

5

55. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff to

6 kiss him. When she did not, he kissed the plaintiff on her

7 lips. Shocked, the plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

8 not to kiss her. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the

9 plaintiff whether she liked being kissed by him and she told

10 him no.

11

56. Despite being told by plaintiff that she did not

12 want him to kiss her, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 kissed the

13 plaintiff again on the lips.
14 57. During this entire time, the plaintiff was
15 frightened and reasonably believed that she could not leave the
16
police vehicle. 17
58. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed 18

19 the plaintiff to leave the car and did not issue the plaintiff

20 a citation for any traffic violation or other crime.

21

59. The following day, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

22 called the plaintiff on the telephone and said that he wanted

23 to take her out for lunch. The plaintiff declined.

24

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 4

25

60. In or about late 2004 or the first half of 2005,

26 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 4 was driving her car westbound on

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page11 of 48

McArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of 38th Avenue in Oakland, 1

California. The plaintiff had her two minor children in the 2

vehicle with her. 3

61. 4

At approximately 35th Avenue, the plaintiff

5 noticed that there was a CITY OF OAKLAND Police car following

6 her vehicle.

7

62. After the plaintiff turned onto 35th Avenue, she

8 continued to Kansas Street, where she made another turn onto

9 Kansas Street. The plaintiff noticed that the police vehicle

10 was continuing to follow her.

11

63. Eventually, the plaintiff parked her car across

12 the street from her home on Kansas Street. Defendant VALERGA

13 or DOE 1, who had been driving the CITY OF OAKLAND Police car
14 which had been following her, parked the police vehicle on
15 Kansas Street.
16
64. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff 17
to get out of her car and to go to his police vehicle without 18

19 any reasonable or probable cause to believe that the plaintiff

20 had committed any vehicle code violation or other crime.

21

65. The plaintiff told her children to get out of

22 the car and go to their home.

23

66. Reasonably believing she was not free to leave,

24 the plaintiff went to defendant VALERA’S or DOE 1’S police

25 vehicle where he directed her to sit on the front passenger 26 seat. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page12 of 48

67. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 directed the 1
plaintiff to produce her driver’s license and asked for her 2
telephone number. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 repeatedly 3
attempted to touch the plaintiff’s hand, but she pulled away 4
5 from him and told him not to touch her.

6

68. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 persisted in his

7 attempts to touch the plaintiff’s hands and remarked to the

8 plaintiff that her hands were cold. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

9 asked the plaintiff if he could call her for a date and she

10 told him no.

11

69. During this entire time, the plaintiff was

12 frightened and reasonably believed that she was not allowed to

13 leave the police car.
14 70. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed
15 the plaintiff to leave his police vehicle and did not issue the
16
plaintiff a citation for any alleged traffic violation or other 17
crime. 18

19

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 5

20

71. In or about approximately 2004 or 2005,

21 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 5 was driving in the vicinity of

22 Fruitvale and International Boulevard in Oakland, California,

23 when she was directed to pull her vehicle over by defendant

24 VALERGA or DOE 1.

25

72. After taking the plaintiff’s driver’s license,

26 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff to sit in the

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page13 of 48

front seat of his police vehicle. 1
73. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff a 2
series of personal questions unrelated to any legitimate law 3
enforcement purpose, including where she went to school and 4

5 whether she had a boyfriend.

6

74. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 took the plaintiff’s

7 hand and held it for a long time and asked her for her cell

8 phone number. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 entered the

9 plaintiff’s cell phone number into his cell phone.

10

75. During this entire time, the plaintiff was

11 frightened and reasonably believed that she was not allowed to
12 leave defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s vehicle.
13 76. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the
14 plaintiff that she could leave, but retained her driver’s
15 license, telling the plaintiff words to the effect that he
16 wished to keep it for the memories. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
17
did not issue the plaintiff a citation for any alleged traffic 18
19 violation or other crime.

20

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 6

21

77. On or about March 17, 2005, plaintiff JANE SMITH

22 NO. 6 was driving in the vicinity of East 10th and 7th Street in

23 Oakland, California, when she was directed to pull her vehicle

24 over by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1.

25

78. After taking the plaintiff’s driver’s license,

26 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff to sit in the

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page14 of 48

front seat of his police vehicle. 1
79. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff a 2
series of personal questions unrelated to any legitimate law 3

enforcement purpose, including whether she was married. 4

5

80. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff

6 for her cell phone number. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 entered

7 the plaintiff’s cell phone number into his cell phone and

8 called the plaintiff’s cell phone.

9

81. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 put his hand in the

10 area of the plaintiff’s crotch. Although the plaintiff

11 attempted to move his hand away, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
12 refused to move his hand and kept it there while he continued
13 to detain the plaintiff in his police vehicle.
14 82. During this entire time, the plaintiff was
15 frightened and reasonably believed that she was not allowed to
16 leave defendant VALERGA’s or DOE 1’s vehicle.
17
83. After the plaintiff received a cell phone call 18
19 from her daughter, she pleaded with defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

20 for him to release her so that she could pick up her daughter.

21 Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 agreed to allow the

22 plaintiff to leave his vehicle.

23

84. When the plaintiff asked defendant VALERGA or

24 DOE 1 whether she would be receiving a ticket, defendant

25 VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff not to worry and instructed 26 the plaintiff to call him the following day at lunchtime. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page15 of 48

85. The plaintiff left defendant VALERGA’S or DOE 1
1’s vehicle and did not call him the following day. 2
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 7 3
86. On or about December 19, 2004, plaintiff JANE 4
5 SMITH NO. 7 was driving her car in the vicinity of the Lake
6 Merritt area in Oakland, California when she noticed that an
7 Oakland Police vehicle was following her.

8

87. After following the plaintiff for some time, the

9 officer activated his lights and signaled for the plaintiff to

10 pull over. The plaintiff complied, pulled her car to the curb

11 and stopped her vehicle.
12 88. Prior to this time, plaintiff did not commit any
13 traffic violations and there was no reasonable or probable
14 cause to stop, detain or arrest the plaintiff.
15 89. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 exited the police
16 vehicle, approached the plaintiff’s car, demanded that she
17
produced her identification and ordered her to get out. He 18
19 then directed the plaintiff to sit in the front seat of his

20 patrol vehicle.

21

90. After the plaintiff was seated in the front seat

22 of the patrol vehicle, Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 examined her

23 driver’s license. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the for her

24 telephone number and told her that he wanted to call her at a

25 later time.

26

91. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also touched and held

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page16 of 48

the plaintiff’s hand for no legitimate law enforcement purpose 1
and without the consent of the plaintiff. 2
92. After approximately five to ten minutes, 3
defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed the plaintiff to leave his 4
5 patrol car and did not issue the plaintiff any citation and
6 provided no explanation to the plaintiff why he did not do so.

7 The plaintiff was never prosecuted for any Vehicle Code or

8 other alleged violations as a result of this incident.

9

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 8

10

93. On or about March 24, 2005, plaintiff JANE SMITH

11 NO. 8 was driving her vehicle in the vicinity of East 15th near
12 International Boulevard in Oakland, California.
13 94. The plaintiff noticed that there was an Oakland
14 Police vehicle behind her and that she was being directed to
15 pull over. The plaintiff pulled over to the curb and stopped
16 her vehicle. Prior to this time, plaintiff had not committed
17
any Vehicle Code violations and there was no reasonable or 18
19 probable cause to stop, detain or arrest the plaintiff.

20

95. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 approached the

21 plaintiff’s vehicle and demanded that the plaintiff produce her

22 driver’s license. The plaintiff told him that her license was

23 in the trunk of her car and got out of her vehicle to retrieve

24 it.

25

96. After providing defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 with

26 her driver’s license, he directed the plaintiff to sit in the

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

16

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page17 of 48

front seat of his patrol vehicle. The plaintiff complied with 1
the officer’s order. 2
97. While the plaintiff was seated in the front seat 3
of the patrol vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 looked at 4
5 information displayed on a computer.

6

98. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also asked the

7 plaintiff questions of a personal nature unrelated to any

8 legitimate law enforcement purpose. This included, but was not

9 limited to, asking the plaintiff if she was married, whether
10 she had children, where she worked, her telephone number at
11 work and what she did for a living.
12 99. After the plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or
13 DOE 1 that her employment involved giving manicures, he asked
14 the plaintiff to describe how she would give him a manicure and
15 told the plaintiff to massage his hand.
16 100. Afraid that she could not refuse the order of
17 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1, plaintiff quickly massaged his
18
19 hand. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 touched the plaintiff’s body
20 without her permission or consent, including her shoulder,
21 knees and thighs.

22

101. As the plaintiff became increasingly upset and

23 concerned about the inappropriate and unwelcome behavior of

24 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1, she asked him to issue her a ticket

25 if he planned to so that she could leave the patrol car and be 26 on her way. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page18 of 48

102. After approximately thirty minutes in the 1
patrol vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 allowed the 2
plaintiff to leave and did not issue the plaintiff a citation. 3
The plaintiff was never charged with any Vehicle Code or other 4

5 violations in connection with this incident.

6

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 9

7

103. On or about the evening of February 19, 2005,

8 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 9 was driving her vehicle on or about

9 Harrison Street in Oakland.

10

104. While the plaintiff was stopped at a red light

11 or about the intersection of Harrison and 11th Streets, she

12 noticed that a City of Oakland police officer was parked on the

13 opposite side of the street, facing her.
14 105. After turning onto 11th Street, the plaintiff
15 was pulled over by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1, who was the same
16
officer who was in the police car that had been facing her at 17
the intersection of Harrison and 11th Streets. 18

19

106. Prior to this time, plaintiff did not commit any

20 Vehicle Code violations and there was no reasonable or probable

21 cause to stop, detain or arrest the plaintiff.

22

107. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 got out of his patrol

23 vehicle and walked to the plaintiff’s car. Defendant VALERGA

24 or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff to get out of her vehicle and

25 directed her to sit in the front seat of his patrol vehicle. 26 The plaintiff complied with his order. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page19 of 48

108. After the plaintiff was seated in the front 1
seat of the patrol vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked 2
the plaintiff for her name and cell phone number which he wrote 3

down. 4

5

109. While detained in the police vehicle, Defendant

6 VALERGA or DOE 1 put his hand on plaintiff’s upper thigh

7 without her consent or permission. Plaintiff attempted to scoot

8 away from defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 and he stared at the

9 plaintiff.

10

110. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff

11 that her mouth, eyes, and nose were pretty.
12 111. Upset and concerned about the unwelcome behavior
13 of defendant VALERGA or DOE 1, plaintiff attempted to get out
14 of the patrol car.
15 112. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 grabbed the
16 plaintiff’s forearm to stop her from getting out of the car.
17
113. The plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 18
19 that she wanted to leave. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 responded

20 by telling the plaintiff to kiss him and gestured to his lips.

21

114. Shocked and upset, the plaintiff continued to

22 try and get out of the car, but defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

23 grabbed her again and told the plaintiff that he wanted her to

24 kiss him.

25

115. Afraid of what the officer might do to her, the

26 plaintiff kissed him quickly on the cheek. Defendant VALERGA

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page20 of 48

or DOE 1, however, insisted the plaintiff kiss him on the lips. 1
Feeling she had no other choice, plaintiff quickly kissed him 2
on the lips and again tried to get out of the car. 3
116. The plaintiff pulled away from defendant VALERGA 4
5 or DOE 1 who was continuing to try and stop the plaintiff from
6 leaving his car. The plaintiff was able to get away from the
7 grasp of defendant VALERGA or DOE 1, got into her own vehicle

8 and was finally able to leave the area.

9

117. The plaintiff never received any citation and

10 was never prosecuted for any Vehicle Code or other violations

11 as a result of this incident.
12 PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 10
13 118. In or about 2004, the plaintiff was driving in
14 the vicinity of Coolidge Avenue in Oakland, California.
15 119. The plaintiff was stopped at a stop sign and
16 noticed that there was an Oakland police officer driving in the
17
opposite direction toward her on Coolidge who was stopped at 18
19 the opposite stop sign.

20

120. As the plaintiff drove her vehicle past the

21 Oakland police officer she noticed that the officer was staring

22 at her.

23

121. After passing the patrol car, the plaintiff

24 noticed that the officer made a u-turn and was following her.

25

122. When she reached the intersection of Coolidge

26 and Foothill Boulevard, the plaintiff turned right onto

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page21 of 48

Foothill. The plaintiff noticed that the Oakland police 1
vehicle was still following her. Eventually, at or about 2
Foothill and 23rd, the plaintiff noticed that the officer had 3
activated the lights on his car and was directing the plaintiff 4

5 to pull over.

6

123. Prior to this time, the plaintiff had not

7 committed any Vehicle Code violations and there was no

8 reasonable or probable cause to stop, detain or arrest the

9 plaintiff.

10

124. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 got out of his

11 patrol car and approached the plaintiff’s vehicle. He demanded

12 the plaintiff’s driver’s license and took it back to his

13 vehicle.
14 125. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 returned to the
15 plaintiff’s vehicle and demanded that the plaintiff exit her
16
vehicle and sit in the front seat of his patrol vehicle. The 17
plaintiff complied with this order. 18

19

126. While the plaintiff was seated in the patrol

20 vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 made comments to the

21 plaintiff which were unwelcome and which had no legitimate law

22 enforcement purpose. This included, but was not limited to,

23 telling the plaintiff that she was pretty and that he liked to

24 look at her.

25

127. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also held the

26 plaintiff’s hand without her consent and told her that he liked

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page22 of 48

her. The plaintiff was frightened and pulled her hand away 1
from defendant VALERGA or DOE 1. 2
128. Defendant VALERGA told the plaintiff not to be 3
afraid and put his arm around her shoulder, while continuing to 4
5 tell the plaintiff that he liked her.

6

129. Shocked and afraid, the plaintiff attempted to

7 push defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 away from her, telling him,

8 “no.”

9

130. Nevertheless, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

10 continued to tell the plaintiff that he liked her, refused to

11 remove his arm from plaintiff’s shoulders and pulled the

12 plaintiff toward him.

13 131. While the plaintiff was in the patrol car, a
14 City of Oakland motorcycle officer drove up. The motorcycle
15 officer and defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 nodded at each other and
16
said something to each other that the plaintiff did not 17
understand. The motorcycle officer drove away. 18

19

132. Thereafter, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked

20 the plaintiff if she would have lunch with him at some later

21 date. The plaintiff declined and defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

22 finally released the plaintiff and allowed her to leave his

23 patrol car.

24

133. The plaintiff was never prosecuted for any

25 Vehicle Code or other violation as a result of this incident.

26

134. Thereafter, on or about February 11, 2005, the

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page23 of 48

plaintiff was driving on International Boulevard in Oakland, 1
California on her way to pick up food for her children. 2
135. The plaintiff noticed a City of Oakland police 3
vehicle driving near 7th and International Boulevard. 4
5 Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1, who was driving the vehicle,
6 activated the lights on the patrol car and directed the

7 plaintiff to pull over.

8

136. Prior to this time, the plaintiff had not

9 committed any Vehicle Code violations and there was no

10 reasonable or probable cause to stop, detain or arrest the

11 plaintiff.
12 137. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 approached the
13 plaintiff’s vehicle and demanded that she produce her driver’s
14 license. After he took the license back to his vehicle,
15 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 approached the plaintiff’s vehicle
16 again and directed the plaintiff to sit in his patrol vehicle.
17
138. The plaintiff believed that she had no choice 18
19 but to comply with defendant’s order and sat in defendant

20 VALERGA’S or DOE 1’s patrol car.

21

139. While seated in the patrol vehicle, defendant

22 VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that she was pretty and

23 grabbed her hand without the plaintiff’s permission or consent.

24

140. The plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

25 that she recognized him from the previous incident and 26 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 acknowledged that he remembered the 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page24 of 48

plaintiff from the earlier encounter. 1
141. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff 2
not to be afraid and that he would not be giving her a ticket. 3
Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 continued to tell the plaintiff that 4
5 she was pretty and told the plaintiff that he wanted to take

6 her photographed because he had missed seeing her.

7

142. The plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

8 that she did not want him to take her picture and attempted to

9 turn away and conceal her face from him.

10

143. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 forcibly pulled the

11 plaintiff near him by putting his arm around her shoulders
12 and/or waist. The plaintiff attempted to pull away from him,
13 but she was unable to do so. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told
14 the plaintiff that he wanted a kiss while he continued to hug
15 her very tightly and refused to release her despite the fact
16 the plaintiff was struggling to get away from him.
17
144. During this time, the plaintiff began to cry and 18
19 shake because she was afraid of defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 and

20 his unwelcome behavior. Nevertheless, defendant VALERGA or DOE

21 1 continued to tell the plaintiff that he liked her and told

22 the plaintiff that he wanted to sit there “all night” with her.

23

145. The plaintiff pleaded with defendant VALERGA or

24 DOE 1 to let her go, telling him that she had to get food for

25 her children. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff 26 that he knew where she worked and that he wanted to take her 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

24

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page25 of 48

out on a date. The plaintiff declined and defendant VALERGA or 1
DOE 1 eventually allowed the plaintiff to leave his patrol car. 2
146. The plaintiff was never prosecuted for any 3
Vehicle Code or other violations as a result of this incident. 4

5

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 11

6

147. In or about late 2004 or early 2005, plaintiff

7 JANE SMITH NO. 11 was driving in the vicinity of 35th Avenue

8 between California and Kansas in Oakland, California. The

9 plaintiff’s sister was in the car with the plaintiff at the

10 time.

11

148. The plaintiff noticed an Oakland Police vehicle

12 driving past her in the opposite direction. The plaintiff then

13 noticed that the police car made a u-turn and was driving
14 behind her vehicle.
15 149. The officer activated the lights on the patrol
16
vehicle and directed the plaintiff to pull over at or near the 17
intersection of California and 35th Avenue in Oakland and the 18

19 police officer stopped his vehicle in front of the plaintiff’s

20 car.

21

150. Prior to this time, the plaintiff had committed

22 no Vehicle Code violations and there was no reasonable or

23 probable cause to stop, detain or arrest the plaintiff.

24

151. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 exited the police

25 vehicle and approached the plaintiff’s car. Defendant VALERGA 26 or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff to get out of her vehicle and 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

25

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page26 of 48

directed the plaintiff to sit in the front seat of his police 1
car. 2
152. The plaintiff’s sister also got out of the car 3
and sat in the back seat of the patrol vehicle. Defendant 4
5 VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff’s sister to get out of the
6 patrol vehicle and to sit in the plaintiff’s vehicle. The
7 plaintiff’s sister complied with this order.

8

153. After the plaintiff’s sister left the patrol

9 car, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked plaintiff questions of a
10 personal nature entirely unrelated to any legitimate law
11 enforcement purpose.
12 154. While the plaintiff was seated in the patrol
13 car, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 grabbed the plaintiff’s hand
14 and began squeezing and massaging her. Defendant VALERGA or
15 DOE 1 also told the plaintiff that he wanted to go out to eat
16 with her and that he wanted the plaintiff to be his friend.
17 155. The plaintiff was shocked and frightened by this
18
19 unwelcome behavior of defendant VALERGA or DOE 1. At one
20 point, the plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 that she
21 could not go out with him because she had three children at

22 home. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that he

23 would hire a babysitter for her if she could not afford one so

24 that she could go out with him.

25

156. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 continued to plead

26 with the plaintiff to go out with him, telling the plaintiff

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

26

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page27 of 48

that he could issue her a ticket. The plaintiff continued to 1
decline and told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 repeatedly that she 2
wanted to leave the patrol car. Eventually, defendant VALERGA 3
or DOE 1 finally allowed the plaintiff to exit the patrol 4

5 vehicle.

6

157. The plaintiff was never prosecuted for any

7 Vehicle Code or any other violation as a result of this

8 incident.

9

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 12

10

158. On or about March 2, 2005, plaintiff JANE SMITH

11 NO. 12 was driving alone in her car on East 12th Street in the
12 vicinity of 22nd and 23rd in Oakland, California.
13 159. A City of Oakland police officer signaled for
14 the plaintiff to pull over. The plaintiff complied.
15 160. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 exited the police
16 vehicle and approached the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff
17
rolled down her window and defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered 18
19 the plaintiff to sit in the front seat of his patrol car.

20

161. The plaintiff complied with the officer’s order

21 and she sat in the front passenger seat of the patrol vehicle.

22

162. Prior to this time, the plaintiff had not

23 committed any Vehicle Code violations and there was no

24 reasonable or probable cause to stop, detain or arrest the

25 plaintiff.

26

163. After the plaintiff was seated in the police

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

27

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page28 of 48

vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff 1
questions of a personal nature which had no legitimate law 2
enforcement purpose, such as whether the plaintiff was married, 3
whether she had children and where she worked. 4

5

164. After approximately ten minutes, defendant

6 VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff that she could go and she

7 exited the police vehicle.

8

165. The plaintiff was never prosecuted for any

9 Vehicle Code or other violations as a result of this incident.

10

166. Thereafter, on or about April 21, 2005,

11 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 12 was driving her vehicle in the
12 vicinity of east 14th Street in Oakland, California, when she
13 was pulled over again without reasonable or probable cause by
14 defendant RICHARD VALERGA or DOE 1 while he was acting in his
15 capacity as a City of Oakland police officer.
16 167. Once again, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered
17
the plaintiff to sit in his police vehicle and she complied 18
19 with this order. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the

20 plaintiff to produce her driver’s license and he took it from

21 her.

22

168. While seated in the police vehicle, defendant

23 VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff a series of personal

24 questions entirely unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement

25 purpose, including, but not limited to, whether she had a 26 family and where she worked. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page29 of 48

169. After approximately ten minutes, defendant 1
VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff she could leave his car and 2
did not issue the plaintiff any citation. The plaintiff was 3
never charged with any crime or Vehicle Code violation as a 4

5 result of this incident.

6

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 13

7

170. On or about May 5, 2005, plaintiff JANE SMITH

8 NO. 13 was driving her car in the vicinity of Foothill

9 Boulevard and 23rd Avenue in Oakland, California when she was

10 pulled over by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1.

11

171. Prior to being stopped by defendant VALERGA or

12 DOE 1, the plaintiff had not committed any Vehicle Code

13 violations and there was no reasonable or probable cause to
14 stop, detain or arrest the plaintiff.
15 172. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 approached the
16
plaintiff’s vehicle and ordered the plaintiff to get out and 17
sit in the front seat of his patrol vehicle. The plaintiff 18

19 complied with this order.

20

173. After the plaintiff was seated in the patrol

21 vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 began asking the plaintiff

22 questions and making comments of a personal nature entirely

23 unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Some of

24 the questions and comments by defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 were

25 not understood entirely by the plaintiff because she is not 26 fluent in English. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

29

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page30 of 48

174. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 also put his hand 1
next to her thigh while she was seated in the front seat of the 2
police vehicle which made the plaintiff very upset and 3

concerned. 4

5

175. After the plaintiff informed defendant VALERGA

6 or DOE 1 that she forgot her driver’s license at home,

7 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff whether anyone

8 was at her home. After the plaintiff replied in the negative,

9 defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 instructed the plaintiff to drive to
10 her home and told the plaintiff that he would follow her in his
11 vehicle.
12 176. When the plaintiff got to her home, she went
13 into her home and defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 followed her
14 inside. The plaintiff went to her bedroom to retrieve her
15 license and then gave it to defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 in the
16 kitchen of her home.
17 177. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 took photographs of
18
19 the plaintiff while she was in her home with his cell phone.
20 He demanded that the plaintiff give him her telephone number
21 and she did so, believing she had no other option.

22

178. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 made some comments

23 to the plaintiff which she did not understand because she is

24 not fluent in English.

25

179. Eventually, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 left the

26 plaintiff’s home and did not issue her a citation. The

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

30

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page31 of 48

plaintiff was never prosecuted for any Vehicle Code or other 1
violations as a result of this incident. 2
PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 14 3
180. On or about the evening of March 24, 2005, 4
5 plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 14 was driving her car after leaving
6 work at the U.S. Park Service offices in Oakland, California,

7 on her way to her parent’s home.

8

181. The plaintiff pulled her car over in the

9 vicinity of East 12th Street near 9th Avenue in Oakland to pick

10 up a cup that she had dropped in the car.

11

182. While the plaintiff was parked at the curb

12 retrieving the cup from the passenger side of her car, an

13 Oakland Police vehicle pulled up next to her car.
14 183. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 falsely claimed
15 that the plaintiff made an illegal lane change and then parked
16
behind the plaintiff’s vehicle and got out of his car. After 17
asking the plaintiff to produce her driver’s license, defendant 18

19 VALERGA or DOE 1 ordered the plaintiff to sit in the front seat

20 of his patrol vehicle. The plaintiff complied with this order.

21

184. After the plaintiff was seated in the patrol

22 vehicle, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 asked the plaintiff

23 questions and made comments of a personal nature, entirely

24 unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement purpose, including,

25 but not limited to, whether she had a boyfriend and where she 26 worked. The plaintiff told defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 that she 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

31

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page32 of 48

worked for the U.S. Park Service and where her office was 1
located on Jackson Street in Oakland. 2
185. After approximately ten or fifteen minutes, 3
defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 eventually allowed the plaintiff to 4

5 leave his vehicle and did not issue the plaintiff any citation.

6

186. The plaintiff was not prosecuted for any Vehicle

7 Code or other violations as a result of this incident.

8

PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 15

9

187. On or about April 20, 2005, plaintiff JANE SMITH

10 NO. 15 was driving in the vicinity of Lakeshore and 14th St in
11 Oakland when she noticed that there was an Oakland Police
12 vehicle behind her.
13 188. The officer activated the lights on his patrol
14 vehicle and directed the plaintiff to pull over. The plaintiff
15 complied with the officer’s direction, pulled over and stopped
16 her car.
17 189. Prior to this time, the plaintiff had not
18
19 committed any Vehicle Code violations and there was no
20 reasonable or probable cause to stop, detain or arrest the
21 plaintiff.

22

190. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 exited the police

23 vehicle and approached the plaintiff’s car. Defendant VALERGA

24 or DOE 1 asked for the plaintiff’s driver’s license and took it

25 back to his vehicle.

26

191. Shortly thereafter, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

32

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page33 of 48

ordered the plaintiff to get out of her car and to sit in the 1
front seat of his police car. The plaintiff complied with this 2
order. 3
192. After the plaintiff was seated in the police 4
5 car, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 began asking plaintiff
6 questions and making comments of a personal nature that had no
7 legitimate law enforcement purpose. This included asking the

8 plaintiff about her employment, education and her career as an

9 insurance claims examiner. During this time, defendant VALERGA

10 or DOE 1 lightly touched the plaintiff’s hand.

11

193. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 informed plaintiff

12 that the computer in his vehicle was not operating and that he

13 needed to take a photograph of the plaintiff with his cell
14 phone and that he needed to write down her name, address and
15 cell phone number on a pad of paper. Plaintiff is informed and
16
believes and thereon alleges that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 17
did not do this for any legitimate law enforcement purpose, but 18

19 to satisfy his own interests.

20

194. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 told the plaintiff

21 that she would not get a ticket because she was a nice girl and

22 allowed the plaintiff to leave his patrol vehicle after

23 approximately ten minutes.

24

195. The plaintiff was never prosecuted for any

25 Vehicle Code or other violations as a result of this incident.

26

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

33

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page34 of 48

1 PLAINTIFF JANE SMITH NO. 16
2 196. On or about March 10, 2005, plaintiff JANE SMITH
3 NO. 16 was driving in the vicinity of 12th Street, near 21st
4
5 Avenue in Oakland when she noticed that there was an Oakland
6 Police vehicle behind her.

7

197. The officer activated the lights on his patrol

8 vehicle and directed the plaintiff to pull over. The plaintiff

9 complied with the officer’s direction, pulled over and stopped

10 her car.

11

198. Defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 exited the police

12 vehicle and approached the plaintiff’s car. Defendant VALERGA

13 or DOE 1 asked for the plaintiff’s driver’s license and took it
14 back to his vehicle.
15 199. Shortly thereafter, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
16
ordered the plaintiff to get out of her car and to sit in the 17
front seat of his police car. The plaintiff complied with this 18

19 order.

20

200. After the plaintiff was seated in the police

21 car, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 began asking plaintiff

22 questions and making comments of a personal nature that had no

23 legitimate law enforcement purpose. This included asking the

24 plaintiff about her employment, her family and where she was

25 going. During this time, defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 rubbed the 26 plaintiff’s lap with his hand. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

34

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page35 of 48

201. After approximately thirty minutes, defendant 1
Valerga or Doe 1 allowed the plaintiff to leave the patrol 2
vehicle. 3
202. The following day, plaintiff JANE SMITH NO. 16 4
5 was driving to work she saw defendant Valerga or Doe 1 at
6 approximately East 12th between 8th and 9th Avenues. Plaintiff

7 noticed that defendant Valerga or Doe 1 was apparently engaged

8 in a traffic stop and had an Asian woman seated in the front

9 seat of his patrol vehicle.

10

203. Subsequently, plaintiffs are informed and

11 believe and thereon allege that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was
12 charged by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office with
13 violations of the California Penal Code in connection with some
14 of his traffic stops of Asian females. Plaintiffs are informed
15 and believe and thereon allege that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1
16 pleaded no contest to some of those charges.
17
204. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 18
19 allege that defendant VALERGA or DOE 1 was able to engage in a

20 custom, policy, pattern and/or practice of inappropriate

21 conduct and civil rights violations against Asian female

22 motorists as a result of longstanding customs, policies and/or

23 practices of the CITY OF OAKLAND which encouraged, authorized,

24 condoned and/or acquiesced in sexual harassment and other

25 unlawful conduct by members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 26 Department. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

35

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page36 of 48

205. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 1
allege that said abuses of power by CITY OF OAKLAND Police 2
Officers in past years have included, but are not limited to: 3

a. Rape, sexual harassment (Officer Bernard Riley); 4

5

b. Visiting a brothel while on duty (Officers Eric

6 Riccholt and Mark Neely, Jr.);

7

c. Stalking, sexual harassment and retaliation

8 against a subordinate (Lt. Antonio Romero);

9

d. Quid pro quo sexual harassment (Officer Kent

10 McNabb);

11

e. Sexual harassment (Officer John Mendez);

12 f. Kidnapping, assault and battery, drug planting,

13 fabricating evidence and reports, false arrests and false
14 imprisonment, conspiracy (See, e.g., Delphine Allen v. City of
15 Oakland, et al., Master File No. C00-4599 TEH);
16
g. Violation of civil rights resulting in a jury 17
award totaling more than $2 million dollars in damages to 18

19 plaintiffs against OPD officers Clyde Sims, Robert Chenault,

20 Michael Sitterud (Bari/Cherny v. FBI, et al.);

21

h. Stewart v. City of Oakland, et al. (Sexual

22 harassment and sexual assault of a civilian by Oakland Police

23 officer);

24

i. Keller-Dean v. City of Oakland, Gary Romero, et

25 al., USDC Case No. C00-01930 MHP (sexual assault/sexual 26 harassment of a civilian by an Oakland Police Officer). 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

36

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page37 of 48

206. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and 1
thereon alleges that the repeated abuse of authority by CITY OF 2
OAKLAND Police Officers is the product of a culture of 3
tolerance within the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department. This 4
5 culture is rooted in the deliberate indifference of high
6 ranking Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND officials, including, but not
7 limited to Defendants DOES 51-100, and/or other high ranking

8 officials and/or supervisors, and each of them, individually

9 and/or acting in concert with one another, who have routinely
10 acquiesced in misconduct of members of the CITY OF OAKLAND
11 Police Department, ratified such misconduct and/or who have
12 otherwise failed to take the measures necessary to prevent and
13 curtail such misconduct.
14 207. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and
15 thereon allege that they suffered the violation of their
16 constitutional rights and otherwise incurred damages as alleged
17 herein as a result of customs, policies, patterns and/or
18
19 practices of Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and DOES 51-100, and
20 each of them, which have encouraged, authorized, condoned,
21 ratified and otherwise permitted such misconduct to continue

22 and flourish within the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department.

23

208. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and

24 thereon allege that said customs, policies, patterns and

25 practices have included the repeated failure by Defendant CITY 26 OF OAKLAND and its high ranking officials to fully implement 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

37

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page38 of 48

remedial action intended to prevent such misconduct from 1
continuing to occur within the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 2
Department. 3
209. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 4
5 allege that they suffered the violation of their constitutional
6 rights as a result of deliberate indifference of Defendants
7 CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100, and/or other high ranking Police

8 Department officials and/or supervisors, with regard to the

9 need for more or different policies, training, supervision

10 and/or discipline of its police officers, including, but not

11 limited to, Defendant VALERGA and/or DOES 1-50, and/or each of

12 them.

13 210. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
14 allege that the subject incidents were caused as a result of
15 the aforesaid customs, policies, patterns, practices and/or
16
deliberate indifference by Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 2017
10 and/or each of them. 18

19

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20

211. Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to

21 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2) to allege claims for damages,

22 injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and

23 all persons similarly situated. The proposed class consists of

24 all females of Asian descent who were subjected to traffic

25 stops by defendants Richard Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 while they 26 were working as members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

38

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page39 of 48

Department that were not supported by probable cause; all 1
females of Asian descent who were subjected to discriminatory 2
or disparate treatment during traffic stops by defendants 3
Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 while they were working as members of 4
5 the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department because of their
6 ethnicity, race and/or gender; and all females of Asian descent
7 who were subjected to sexual harassment by defendants Richard

8 Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 while they were working as members of

9 the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department.

10

212. This case satisfies the prerequisites of a Rule

11 23(b(2) class action.
12 213. The class is so numerous that joinder of all
13 members is impracticable. Plaintiffs do not know the identities
14 or exact number of all class members. Based on newspaper
15 accounts, it appears that defendant Valerga began his employment
16 with the City of Oakland Police Department in approximately 1999
17
and, based on his tenure with the Oakland Police Department and 18
19 defendant Valerga’s repeated pattern and practice of misconduct,

20 the membership of the class is likely to be numerous.

21

214. There are questions of law and fact common to all

22 members of the class, because all class members have been

23 adversely affected by the challenged actions of the defendants.

24 Common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to:

25 whether defendant Richard Valerga and/or DOES 1-50 and/or each of 26 them engaged in a practice of making traffic stops of Asian 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

39

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page40 of 48

females without probable cause; whether defendants Richard 1
Valerga and/or Does 1-50 and/or each of them engaged in a 2
practice of using traffic stops as a pretext to sexually harass 3
Asian females; whether defendants Richard Valerga and/or Does 14
5 50 and/or each of them engaged in a practice of singling out
6 Asian females for discriminatory and disparate treatment because
7 of their race, ethnicity and/or gender while they were working as

8 members of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department; whether the

9 CITY OF OAKLAND maintained customs, policies, patterns and
10 practices which caused and/or contributed to the violation of the
11 plaintiffs’ rights; and whether the CITY OF OAKLAND, its police
12 department and/or city officials and/or supervisors failed to
13 properly train and supervise members of the CITY OF OAKLAND
14 Police Department which caused and/or contributed to the
15 violation of the plaintiffs’ rights.
16 215. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of
17 the claims of the class. The claims of the class members arise
18
19 from the same type of conduct, customs, policies or practices
20 that have resulted in damages to the class representatives and
21 are based on the same legal theories.

22

216. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and

23 adequately protect the interests of the class because they are,

24 and were, subject to the policies, customs, patterns and

25 practices complained of herein, and have no interests 26 antagonistic to other members of the class. In addition, 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

40

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page41 of 48

plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in litigating federal civil 1
rights cases and class actions, including federal civil rights 2
actions against the CITY OF OAKLAND and the CITY OF OAKLAND 3

Police Department. 4

5

217. The defendants have acted and/or have failed to

6 act on grounds generally applicable to the class, and an award of

7 damages, injunctive and declaratory relief for the class as a

8 whole is appropriate.

9

218. The prosecution of separate actions by individual

10 members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or

11 incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, thereby
12 making a class action the superior method of adjudicating the
13 controversy.
14 STATEMENT OF DAMAGES AND RELIEF SOUGHT
15 219. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of
16 defendants as alleged in this Complaint, plaintiffs, and each
17
of them, suffered damages and/or injuries, including, but not 18
19 limited to, pain, suffering and emotional distress.

20

220. Plaintiffs will also be entitled to an award of

21 special damages, including for medical treatment and/or any

22 other out of pocket losses, if any were incurred.

23

221. Plaintiffs will also be entitled to recover

24 their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to their

25 general and compensatory damages pursuant to statute.

26

222. The conduct of defendant VALERGA and/or DOES 1-

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

41

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page42 of 48

100 and/or each of them, was intentional, oppressive, 1
malicious, fraudulent and/or done with a conscious and/or 2
reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs. 3
Therefore, plaintiffs will be entitled to recover punitive 4
5 damages in amounts to be determined according to proof.

6

223. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, conduct

7 and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result

8 in irreparable injury to plaintiffs, including but not limited to

9 violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
10 Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to
11 address the wrongs described herein. The plaintiffs and class
12 members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional
13 rights in the vicinity of the City of Oakland and in other public
14 places in the City of Oakland. Defendants’ conduct described
15 herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs
16 with respect to their ability to exercise their constitutional
17 rights in the present and future, and with respect to their
18
19 physical security and safety. Defendants’ conduct described
20 herein has also created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among
21 plaintiffs and class members with respect to their exercise of

22 their right to move freely about the public streets, without

23 being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures and/or

24 discriminatory and disparate treatment due to their ethnicity,

25 race and/or gender.

26

224. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

42

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page43 of 48

this court, to ensure that plaintiffs and persons similarly 1
situated will not suffer violations of their rights from 2
defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and 3

practices as described herein. 4

5

225. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs

6 and defendants in that plaintiffs contend that the policies,

7 practices and conduct of defendants alleged herein are unlawful

8 and unconstitutional, whereas plaintiffs are informed and believe

9 that defendants contend that said policies, practices and conduct

10 are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of

11 rights with respect to this controversy.

12 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

13 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)

15

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS RICHARD VALERGA, DOES 1-50)

16

226. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-

17 alleges herein Paragraphs 1 through 225.

18

227. In doing the acts complained of herein,

19 defendants VALERGA and/or DOES 1-19 and/or each of them, did

20 act under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs, the class
21 members and/or each of them as alleged heretofore of certain
22 constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited
23
to: 24
(a) the right to be free from unreasonable searches or 25

26 seizures;

27

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

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

43

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page44 of 48

(c) the right not to be deprived of liberty without due 1
process of law. 2
228. Said rights are substantive guarantees under 3
the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 4
5 Constitution.

6

229. As a result of the violation of their

7 constitutional rights by defendants VALERGA and/or DOES 1-50

8 and/or each of them, plaintiffs, the class members and/or each

9 of them sustained the injuries and/or damages as alleged

10 heretofore in this Complaint.

11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set

12 forth.

13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)

(AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, DOES 51-100)

15

230. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-

16

allege herein Paragraphs 1 through 229. 17

231. As against Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and/or 18

19 DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, individually and/or in their

20 capacities as official policy-maker(s) for the CITY OF

21 OAKLAND, the plaintiffs further allege that the acts and/or

22 omissions alleged in the Complaint herein are indicative and

23 representative of a repeated course of conduct by members of

24 the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department tantamount to a custom,

25 policy or repeated practice of condoning and tacitly 26 encouraging the abuse of police authority, and disregard for 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

44

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page45 of 48

the constitutional rights of citizens, such as plaintiffs. 1
232. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and 2
thereon allege that the acts and/or omissions alleged herein 3
are the proximate result of a custom, policy, pattern or 4
5 practice of deliberate indifference by Defendants CITY OF
6 OAKLAND, DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, to the repeated
7 violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by CITY OF

8 OAKLAND police officers, which have included, but are not

9 limited to, repeated acts of sexual misconduct while on duty,
10 unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrests, false
11 imprisonments, the repeated denial of equal protection of the
12 law based on race and/or gender and other repeated violations
13 of the constitutional rights of citizens in Oakland.
14 233. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe
15 and thereon allege that the damages sustained as alleged
16 herein were the proximate result customs, policies and/or
17 practices which included, but were not limited to, the failure
18
19 to adequately or appropriately hold officers accountable for
20 their misconduct, the failure to properly and fairly
21 investigate complaints about officers’ misconduct, the failure

22 to enact or adopt policies to ensure adequate and/or

23 appropriate oversight of officers to prevent continuing

24 violations of the rights of citizens, the failure to properly

25 train and/or discipline officers, the failure to adequately or 26 properly supervise officers, the failure to adopt and fully 27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

45

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page46 of 48

implement an appropriate early warning system, policies and 1
customs which encouraged officers to target certain groups of 2
citizens for unreasonable search and seizure and/or other 3
customs, and/or policies which caused and/or contributed to, 4
5 the violation of the rights of citizens by members of the CITY

6 OF OAKLAND Police Department.

7

234. The aforementioned deliberate indifference,

8 customs, policies or practices of Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND,

9 DOES 51-100, and/or each of them, resulted in the deprivation

10 of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and class

11 members, including, but not limited to, the following:
12 (a) the right not to be deprived of liberty or property
13 without Due Process of Law;
14 (b) the right to be free from unreasonable searches
15 and/or seizures; and/or,
16 (c) the right to equal protection of the law.
17
235. Said rights are substantive guarantees under 18
19 the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

20 Constitution.

21

236. As a result of the violation of their

22 constitutional rights by defendants CITY OF OAKLAND and/or

23 DOES 51-100 and/or each of them, plaintiffs and the class

24 members and/or each of them, sustained the injuries and/or

25 damages as alleged heretofore in this Complaint.

26

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

46

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page47 of 48

forth. 1
2
3

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 237. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

PRAYER 4

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against

6 defendants, and each of them, as follows:

7

1. For an order certifying the class defined herein

8 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2);

9

2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

10 restraining defendants from engaging in the unlawful and

11 unconstitutional actions complained of above;
12 3. For a declaratory judgment that defendants’ conduct
13 complained of herein was a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under
14 the Constitution and laws of the United States and California;
15 4. For the individual named plaintiffs, general and
16 compensatory damages to be determined according to proof;
17
5. For punitive and exemplary damages in amounts to be 18
19 determined according to proof as to the individual defendants;

20

6. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988

21 and/or other authorities in amounts to be determined according to

22 proof;

23

7. For costs of suit;

24

8. For pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by

25 law; 26 27

9. For such other and further relief as the Court may

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

47

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

Case3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document31 Filed11/09/07 Page48 of 48

deem just and proper. 1

2

Dated: September 10, 2007

3

JOHN

Attorney 4

____________/S/_______________ L. BURRIS for Plaintiffs

5 DATED: September 10, 2007

6

JAMES

Attorney

7

___________/S/________________ B. CHANIN for Plaintiffs

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

48

Smith v. City of Oakland, Case No. C06-07171 MJJ

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 JANE SMITH NO. 1, et al.,

No. C-06-07171 MMC

12 13 v.

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS

14 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants

/

16

17

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to certify the above-titled case as a class action,

18 pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant City of Oakland

19 has filed opposition, in which defendant Richard Valerga has joined, and to which plaintiffs

20 have replied. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

21 motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers, and rules as

22 follows.

23

1. Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition is not sufficiently “precise, objective, and

24 presently ascertainable.” See O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D.

25 Cal. 1998); Xiufang Situ v. Leavitt, 240 F.R.D. 551, 558 (declining to certify class defined in

26 terms of legal theory, because class membership could not be determined “without

27 reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims”). Further, it does not appear to the Court that a

28 meaningful definition meeting the above-referenced requirements can be crafted. See

1 Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 597, 611 (E.D. La. 2006) (recognizing Court's

2 discretion to limit or modify class definition).

3

2. Assuming, arguendo, a meaningful class definition delineating membership by

4 objective facts could be determined, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing

5 any such class is “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” See Fed R.

6 Civ. P. 23(a). Although every class member need not be identified in advance, plaintiffs

7 argument that any such class would consist of appreciably more individuals than the 16

8 plaintiffs named in the instant complaint is unsupported by anything other than “mere

9 speculation.” Cf. Kincaid v. City of Fresno, 244 F.R. D. 597, 601 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (holding

10 numerosity requirement met where only 23 plaintiffs identified by name but large potential

11 class “reasonably estimated” by reference to statistical evidence). Nor do plaintiffs meet

12 the numerosity requirement by any alternative showing, see, e.g., Tietz v. Bowen, 695 F.

13 Supp. 441 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (certifying class consisting of 27 members where members

14 “geographically diverse” and “as retirees, [might] not have the means to bring individual

15 suits”), and plaintiffs’ proffered generalizations as to potential class members’ reluctance to

16 sue are insufficient to support an inference to that effect.

17

3. Additionally, plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements under Rule 23(b).

18 Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is unavailable, as injunctive relief appears moot in light of

19 defendant Valerga's discharge from the Oakland Police Department and, in any event,

20 given the potential for a substantial award of individual damages, does not constitute

21 plaintiffs’ primary claim for relief. See Molski v. Gleich, 328 F.3d 937, 947 (9th Cir. 2003)

22 (holding where certification sought under Rule 23(b)(2), “claims for monetary damages

23 must be secondary to the primary claim for injunctive relief”). Nor have plaintiffs shown

24 certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate. In particular, given the myriad and

25 individualized events potentially arising under plaintiffs' proposed or similar class definition,

26 plaintiffs have failed to show “questions of law or fact common to class members

27 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” See Fed. Rule Civ. P.

28 23(b)(3). Similarly, given the need for such individualized showings, as well as the

2

1 potential for substantial damages coupled with the applicability of fee-shifting statutes,

2 plaintiffs have failed to show a class action is “superior to other available methods for fairly

3 and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” See id.; see also Abby v. City of Detroit, 218

4 F.R.D. 544, 549 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (noting class action “must be superior to, and not just as

5 good as, other available methods for handling the controversy”; finding existence of

6 fee-shifting statute and individualized actions both “weigh against class certification”)

7 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

8

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is hereby DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 Dated: June 16, 2008 12

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 JANE SMITH NO. 1, et al.,

No. C-06-7171 MMC

12

Plaintiffs,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13 v.

14 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants

/

16

17

The parties having advised the Court that they have agreed to a settlement of the

18 above-titled action,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed without prejudice;

20 provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within ninety days, with

21 proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for

22 the settlement has not been delivered, the foregoing order shall stand vacated and the

23 action shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

24

The Court hereby retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement between the parties.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: June 27, 2008
27

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

28

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 1 of 15
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,REFSET−JCS
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−07171−MMC

Jane Smith No. 1 et al v. City of Oakland et al Assigned to: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/20/2006 Date Terminated: 06/27/2008 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jane Smith No. 1

represented by John L. Burris Law Offices of John L. Burris 7677 Oakport Street, Ste 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 510−839−5200 Fax: 510−839−3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James B. Chanin Law Offices of James B. Chanin 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 510−848−4752 Fax: 510−848−5819 Email: jbcefiling@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie M. Houk James B. Chanin Law Offices 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 510−848−4752 Email: juliemhouk@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 2

represented by John L. Burris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James B. Chanin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 3

represented by John L. Burris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James B. Chanin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 2 of 15

Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 4
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 5 individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 6
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 7 Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 8 Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 9 Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 10

Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John L. Burris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James B. Chanin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John L. Burris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James B. Chanin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James B. Chanin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 3 of 15

Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 11
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 12
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 13
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 14
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 15
Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 16

represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie M. Houk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Oakland

represented by Ines Vargas Fraenkel City Attorney's Office One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, Ca 94612 (510) 238−6512 Fax: (510) 238−6500 Email: ivfraenkel@oaklandcityattorney.org TERMINATED: 03/28/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kandis Arianne Westmore City Attorney's Office One Frank Ogawa Plaza , 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510− 238−3589 Fax: 510− 238−6500 Email: kawestmore@oaklandcityattorney.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons Oakland City Attorney One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238−6520 Fax: 510−238−6500 Email: wesimmons@oaklandcityattorney.org

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 4 of 15

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Richard Valerga inclusive

represented by Geoffrey A. Beaty Rankin Sproat Mires Beaty & Reynolds 1333 Braodway, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 510 465−3922 Fax: 510 452−3006 Email: gbeaty@rankinlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
Jane Roe Moving party re related case motion

represented by Julie M. Houk James B. Chanin Law Offices 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 510−848−4752 Fax: 510−848−5819 Email: juliemhouk@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/20/2006
11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006
11/21/2006 11/22/2006 11/27/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Damages, Demand for Jury Trial against City of Oakland, Richard Valerga ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4413550.). Filed byJane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 2/22/2007. Case Management Conference set for 3/1/2007 02:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
Summons Issued as to City of Oakland, Richard Valerga. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
3 MOTION to Related Case CV−06−2424 MHP, CV−00−4599 TEH filed by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
4 Received Ex Parte Application and Proposed Order granting plaintiffs leave to file a disclosure of their true identities under seal by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2006)
5 NOTICE by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3 Notice of Unavailability of Counsel (Chanin, James) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
6 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/22/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
7 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Martin J. Jenkins for all further proceedings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 11/27/06. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (Entered: 11/27/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 5 of 15

01/10/2007 01/16/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007 02/07/2007
02/07/2007 02/12/2007 02/20/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007
02/28/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/07/2007 03/07/2007
03/21/2007 07/31/2007

8 CLERK'S NOTICE: This case is NOT related to C00−4599 TEH and C06−2424 MHP. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2007) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
9 CLERK'S NOTICE [Reassigned Case]. Case Management Conference set for 3/6/2007 02:00 PM. Case Management Statement due by 2/26/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2007) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
10 NOTICE by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3 Notice of Unavailability of Counsel (Chanin, James) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
11 Ex Parte Application and ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Disclosure Under Seal. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 1/23/2007. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
12 Disclosure of True Identities (filed UNDER SEAL) by plaintiffs. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against all defendants. Filed byJane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (Chanin, James) (Filed on 2/7/2007) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
14 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3 as to City of Oakland, Richard Valerga. (Chanin, James) (Filed on 2/7/2007) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Summons Issued as to City of Oakland, Richard Valerga. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2007) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3 re Summons Issued, (Chanin, James) (Filed on 2/20/2007) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
16 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (Chanin, James) (Filed on 2/23/2007) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
17 STIPULATION by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulated Protective Order entered in Jane Doe, et al.)(Chanin, James) (Filed on 2/26/2007) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
18 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 2/27/2007. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2007) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Addendum filed by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (Chanin, James) (Filed on 3/2/2007) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
20 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ADDENDUM TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City of Oakland, Richard Valerga. (Fraenkel, Ines) (Filed on 3/2/2007) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3 re Summons Issued, (Chanin, James) (Filed on 3/7/2007) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
22 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/6/2007 before Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Case continued to 12/18/07 at 9:30 a.m. for hearing re: certification motion; and 1/15/08 at 2:00 p.m. for Further Status Conference. Parties to file proposed pretrial order early Jan. 2008.(Court Reporter : Not Reported.) (epb, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/7/2007) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
23 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (First) byRichard Valerga. (Beaty, Geoffrey) (Filed on 3/21/2007) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
24 NOTICE by Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3 Of Unavailability of Plaintiffs' Counsel (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 7/31/2007) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 6 of 15

11/06/2007
11/06/2007 11/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/09/2007 11/13/2007
11/13/2007
11/13/2007

25 STIPULATION And Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9, Jane Smith No. 10, James Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Second Amended Complaint)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/6/2007) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
26 REDACTION Plaintiffs Jane Smith Nos. 7−16's Disclosure of True Identities by Jane Smith No. 10, James Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/6/2007) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
27 MOTION to Seal Document 26 Redacted Document, Plaintiff Jane Smith Nos. 7 to 16 Disclosure of True Identities filed by Jane Smith No. 10, James Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/6/2007) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
28 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 25 granting plaintiffs leave to file second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 11/06/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
29 ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins granting 27 Motion to Seal Document. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
30 DISCLOSURE of True Identities (filed UNDER SEAL) by Jane Smith No. 10, James Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9 (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
31 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint against all defendants. Filed byJane Smith No. 10, James Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/9/2007) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
Summons Issued as to City of Oakland, Richard Valerga. (re Second Amended Complaint) (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2007) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
32 MOTION to Seal Document Administrative Motion to File Motion for Class Certification and Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel in Support thereof Under Seal filed by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. Motion Hearing set for 12/18/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. Motion Hearing set for 12/18/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
34 Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin in Support of 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 7 of 15

11/13/2007
11/13/2007
11/13/2007
11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007

Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 33 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
35 Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 2 in Support of 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 33 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
36 Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 10 in Support of 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 33 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
37 Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Smith No. 11 in Support of 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 33 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
38 Declaration in Support of 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 33 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
39 Proposed Order re 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
40 Declaration of CHIEF WAYNE G. TUCKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' 33 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by City of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/27/2007) Modified on 11/29/2007 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2007)
41 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 47 . *** Declaration of JOHNNY SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/27/2007) Modified on 11/29/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2007)
42 Request for Judicial Notice IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
43 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 48 . *** DECLARATION of SGT. JAMES A. RULLAMAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/27/2007) Modified on 11/29/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2007)
44 Declaration of MARIE MASON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 8 of 15

11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/30/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007
12/03/2007
12/03/2007
12/04/2007 12/05/2007

45 Memorandum in Opposition TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
46 Memorandum in Opposition and Joinder in City of Oakland's Opposition to Motion to Certify Case as a Class Action filed byRichard Valerga. (Beaty, Geoffrey) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
47 Declaration of LT. JOHNNY DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
48 Declaration of SGT. JAMES A. RULLAMAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byCity of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
49 NOTICE of Appearance by Ines Vargas Fraenkel (Fraenkel, Ines) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
50 CLERK'S NOTICE continuing Motion Hearing to 1/23/2008 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
51 ERRATA re 45 Memorandum in Opposition NOTICE OF ERRATA RE. DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by City of Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Errata 1−3)(Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 11/30/2007) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
52 Answer to Amended Complaint Second byRichard Valerga. (Beaty, Geoffrey) (Filed on 12/3/2007) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
53 Ex Parte MOTION to Seal Document Administrative Motion to File Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum and Reply Declaration in Support of Class Certification Motion under Seal filed by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2008 02:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 12/3/2007) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
54 Reply Memorandum re 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 12/3/2007) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
55 Declaration of James B. Chanin [redacted] filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 14 (a) First Half of Def. Valerga's Deposition Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 14(b) Second Half of Def. Valerga's Deposition Transcript, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 15 Excerpt from Deposition of Sgt. Davis, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 16 Excerpt from Non−Monetary Settlement Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 17 Excerpt from the Fourth and Fifth Quarterly Reports of the IMT, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 18 May 4, 2004 Revision to OPD Report Writing Manual, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 19 OPD General Order M−19, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 20 Article re Risk Factors for Abusive Relationships, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 21 Article re Sexual Health of Asian American and Pacific Islander Young Women)(Houk, Julie) (Filed on 12/3/2007) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
56 OBJECTIONS to PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by City of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 12/4/2007) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
Received Document re 53 : Reply Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin, in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Case as a Class Action. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2007) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 9 of 15

12/05/2007 12/17/2007 01/07/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/14/2008 01/25/2008 02/29/2008
03/07/2008
03/11/2008 03/28/2008 04/17/2008
04/22/2008

Received Document re 53 : Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Certify Case as a Class Action.(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2007) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
57 Proposed Order DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by City of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 12/17/2007) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
58 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing hearing. Status Conference reset for 3/4/2008 02:00 PM. Status Conference Statement due by 2/25/2008. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2008) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
59 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 1/9/2008. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2008) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
60 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Maxine M. Chesney for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. Martin J. Jenkins no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/9/08. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2008) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
61 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 3/7/2008 10:30 AM. Case Management Statement due by 2/29/2008.. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 2/27/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Orders for Judge Chesney)(tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2008) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Smith No. 1 Case Management Conference Order; Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned To The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney (Burris, John) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
63 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 2/29/2008) Modified on 3/3/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 02/29/2008)
64 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/7/2008 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 3/7/2008), CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for Settlement Conference, to be held in late April/early May − his calendar permitting. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be re−set for 5/23/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/27/2008 10:30 AM. Amended Pleadings due by 6/30/2008. Case Management Statement due by 6/20/2008. (Not Reported.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/7/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
65 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER. A Settlement Conference is set for 4/29/2008, at 9:30 a.m. Settlement Conference Statements shall be LODGED with Chambers (NOT electronically filed) no later than 4/15/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 3/11/2008. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2008) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
66 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by William Edmond Simmons (Simmons, William) (Filed on 3/28/2008) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
67 Amended MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of Motion filed by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 4/17/2008) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
68 ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AFFORDING DEFENDANTS OPPORTUNITY TO FILE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79−5(d). Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 22, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2008) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 10 of 15

04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008
04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/30/2008 05/01/2008
05/01/2008
05/01/2008

69 AFFIDAVIT DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. SIMMONS [CIVIL L.R. 79−5(d)] by City of Oakland. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 4/25/2008) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
70 Proposed Order SEALING ORDER PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 79−5(d) by City of Oakland. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 4/25/2008) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
71 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 and 53 Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal; Directions to plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 28, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2008) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
72 EXHIBIT 10 TO DECLARATION OF JAMES B. CHANIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CERTIFY filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. Re 71 Order. FILED UNDER SEAL (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/28/2008) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
73 Minute Entry: A Settlement Conference was held; the case did not settle. A Further Settlement Conference will be held on June 2, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/29/2008) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: A Further Settlement Conference set for 6/2/2008 09:30 AM. Before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero re 73 Minutes (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/29/2008) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
74 NOTICE AND ORDER SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE for 6/2/2008, at 9:30 a.m. Updated Settlement Conference Statements shall be LODGED with Chambers no later than 5/26/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/29/2008. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2008) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
75 MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) filed by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
76 Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin in Support of 55 Declaration in Support,,,, 71 Order, 67 Amended MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of Motion, Received Document, 68 Order, 54 Reply Memorandum, 70 Proposed Order, Received Document, 69 Affidavit, 75 MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 55 , 71 , 67 , [], 68 , 54 , 70 , [], 69 , 75 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
77 Reply Memorandum re 67 Amended MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of Motion, 75 MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 11 of 15

05/01/2008
05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008

Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
78 Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin in Support of 34 Declaration in Support,, 55 Declaration in Support,,,, 39 Proposed Order, 37 Declaration in Support,, 38 Declaration in Support, 71 Order, 77 Reply Memorandum,,, 36 Declaration in Support,, 76 Declaration in Support,,,, 35 Declaration in Support,, 67 Amended MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of Motion, Received Document, 68 Order, 72 Exhibits, 54 Reply Memorandum, 70 Proposed Order, Received Document, 69 Affidavit, 75 MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) Reply Declaration of Plaintiffs' Counsel, James B. Chanin (Not Redacted) filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 34 , 55 , 39 , 37 , 38 , 71 , 77 , 36 , 76 , 35 , 67 , [], 68 , 72 , 54 , 70 , [], 69 , 75 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
79 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 14A, Excerpts from the Deposition of Def. Richard Valerga filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
80 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 14B, Excerpts from the deposition of Def. Richard Valerga filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
81 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 15, Excerpts from the Deposition of Johnny Davis filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
82 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 16, Excerpts from the Negotiated Settlement in the Delphine Allen v. City of Oakland Action filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
83 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 17, Combined 4th and 5th Quarter Report of the Independent Monitor (Delphine Allen v. City of Oakland) filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
84 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 18, OPD Report Writing Manual, Insert R−2, 5/4/04 filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 12 of 15

05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008

document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
85 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 19, OPD General Order M−19 11/15/2004 filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
86 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 20, Article, "Risk Factors for Abusive Relationships" filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
87 EXHIBITS re 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, Exhibit 21, Article, "The Sexual Health of Asian American/Pacific Islander Young Women" filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 78 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
88 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 1, Excerpts from the depo of J. Rullamas filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
89 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 3, Excerpts from the depo. of S. Whent filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
90 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 4, Excerpts from the Depo. of R. Goodfellow filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
91 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Ex. 5, Supplemental Responses to RFPs by CIty of Oakland filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
92 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 7, OPD Bates Nos. 1242−1244 filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
93 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 8, Excerpts from the Depo. of E. Johnson filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 13 of 15

05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008

94 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 9, Excerpts from the Depo. of Lt. Johnny Davis filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
95 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 2, Excerpts from the Depo. of Deputy Menzies filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
96 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 11, OPD Assignment Sheets filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
97 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 12, Excerpts from the Deposition of R. Chan filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
98 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 13, Excerpts from the Depo. of OPD Police Chief Wayne Tucker filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
99 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 14, OPD Bates No. 1068 filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
100 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 6a, Part 1 OPD Detail Sheets filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
101 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 6b, Part 2, OPD Detail Sheets filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
102 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 6c, Part 3, OPD Detail Sheets filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
103 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibit 6d, Part Four OPD Detail Sheets filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3,

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 14 of 15

05/01/2008 05/01/2008
05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/04/2008 06/16/2008 06/24/2008

Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
104 EXHIBITS re 76 Declaration in Support,,,, Exhibi 6e, Part 5, OPD Detail Sheets filed byJane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Related document(s) 76 ) (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
105 STIPULATION re 101 Exhibits, 95 Exhibits, 86 Exhibits, 94 Exhibits, 85 Exhibits, 96 Exhibits, 91 Exhibits, 77 Reply Memorandum,,, 92 Exhibits, 102 Exhibits, 99 Exhibits, 100 Exhibits, 76 Declaration in Support,,,, 79 Exhibits, 98 Exhibits, 82 Exhibits,, 104 Exhibits, 83 Exhibits,, 97 Exhibits, 103 Exhibits, 81 Exhibits, 89 Exhibits, 93 Exhibits, 90 Exhibits, 87 Exhibits,, 80 Exhibits, 84 Exhibits, 78 Declaration in Support,,,,,, 88 Exhibits, 75 MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from May 23, 2008 to June 6, 2008 by Jane Smith No. 10, Jane Smith No. 11, Jane Smith No. 12, Jane Smith No. 13, Jane Smith No. 14, Jane Smith No. 15, Jane Smith No. 16, Jane Smith No. 4, Jane Smith No. 5, Jane Smith No. 1, Jane Smith No. 6, Jane Smith No. 2, Jane Smith No. 3, Jane Smith No. 7, Jane Smith No. 8, Jane Smith No. 9. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 5/1/2008) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
106 STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from May 23, 2008 to June 6, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 2, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
107 OBJECTIONS to DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S OBJECTIONS TO REPLY 78 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL, JAMES B. CHANIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY CASE AS A CLASS ACTION by City of Oakland. (Westmore, Kandis) (Filed on 5/2/2008) Modified on 5/5/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 05/02/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 67 Amended MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of Motion, 75 MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted) MOTION to Certify Class Amended Notice of and Motion to Certify Case as Class Action and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Not Redacted). Motion Hearing Continued for 6/6/2008 09:00 AM. Re 106 Stipulation and Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
108 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 6/2/2008). Settlement Conference continued to 6/25/2008 09:30 AM. (Court Reporter N/A.) (mat, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/2/2008) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
109 ORDER VACATING JUNE 6, 2008 HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 4, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2008) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
110 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 16, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
111 ORDER continuing June 27, 2008 Case Management Conference to July 18, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 24, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2008) (Entered: 06/24/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-7171 As of: 02/14/2015 01:30 PM PST 15 of 15

06/24/2008 06/27/2008 06/27/2008
06/27/2008 09/10/2008 09/15/2008

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference Continued for 7/18/2008 10:30 AM. Re 111 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/24/2008) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
112 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held on 6/25/2008; tentative settlement reached. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
113 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held before Judge Joseph C. Spero on 6/27/8. Case settled. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (klh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
114 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 27, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
115 MOTION to Relate Case filed by Jane Roe. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2008 09:00 AM. (Houk, Julie) (Filed on 9/10/2008) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
116 RELATED CASE ORDER. Jane Smith #1, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., C−06−7171 MMC, is not related to Jane Roe v. City of Oakland, et al., C−08−4228 CW. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 15, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)