Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:4

1 HECTOR 0. VILLAGRA (BAR NO. 177586)

hvilla_gra(a),aclu-sc.org

2 BELINDA ESCOBOSA HELZER (BAR NO. 214178) bescobosahelzer@aclu-sc.org
3 ACLU FOUNDAtiON OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

,-_.,_~ -,;-~

.. ,...

,
··-

v

...=~
:;::;,

2140 W. Chapman Ave~ Suite 209 4 Orange, California 928o8
Telepbone: (714) 450-3962 5 Facsimile: (714) 450-3969

_...::)
,,., u< ··- (/)

' 'r--...>

-rt

-.·')

V-:1

r

6 MARK D. ROSENBAUM (BAR NO. 59940) mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org

~

-o 3.:

M
C1

·.-.

7 PETER BIBRlNG (SBN 223981)

..

:

pbibring(a),aclu-sc.org

8 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

1313 W. Eighth Street

9 Los Angeles~ California 90017

Telephone: 213) 977-9500

10 Facsimile: ( 13) 977-5299

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners

12

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15

16 MANUEL VASQUEZ MIGUEL

~ Case N~-1890 VBF (RNBx)

BERNAL LARA, GABRIEL BASTIDA,

1 JAM:ES POE by and through his guardian ) The Honorable

0 ld
(!}

ad htem:JANE DOE, and all others similarly situated,
. l
~: · ...·~~ Plaintiff-Petitioners,

~ COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY AND ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

0
0
_.J

;c· ... vJ.

t~./J-:.~_.~.--=--)r

T f

) PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) HABEAS CORPUS

1

2~& f). o.NYJ~I ACKAUKAS, Orange County

CLASS ACTION

22 DistricfAttorney, in his official capacity; 23 ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police,

Complaint Filed:

Orange Police Department, in his official 24 capacity; DOES 1 through 10, in their

Trial Date: TBD

25 official and individual capacities,

26

Defendant-Respondents.

27
28

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 2 of 55 Page ID #:5

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Defendant-Respondent TONY RACKAUKAS, the Orange County

3 District Attorney ("Defendant OCDA" or "OCDA"), and Defendant-Respondent

4 ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of the Orange Police Department ("Defendant

5 OPD" or "OPD"), have violated the Constitution of the United States and the

6 California Constitution by denying due process of law to Plaintiff-Petitioners

7 MANUEL VASQUEZ (hereinafter "VASQUEZ"), MIGUEL BERNAL LARA

8 (hereinafter "LARA"), GABRIEL BASTIDA (hereinafter "BASTIDA"), JAMES

9 DOE (hereinafter "DOE"), and others similarly situated.

10

2. The OCDA is a public official, elected by the People of this County

11 and entrusted with representing the People of the State of California in criminal

12 prosecutions, as well as public nuisance actions. As a public official, the OCDA is

13 vested with considerable powers, but those powers are "conditioned by the fact

14 that he is the representative not of any ordinary party to a controversy but of a

15 sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its

16 obligation to govern at all." People ex ref. Clancy v. Superior Court, 705 P.2d

17 347, 350 (Cal. 1985) (internal citation marks and quotation omitted). Indeed, as a

18 public official, the OCDA has a responsibility to seek justice, to develop a full and

19 fair record, and not to use his position or the economic power of the government to

20 harass parties or bring about unjust results. !d. The OCDA has failed to meet

21 these basic responsibilities.

22

3. On February 17, 2009, the OCDA brought a civil nuisance abatement

23 lawsuit against an alleged criminal street gang, 115 named individuals alleged to

24 be members of the gang, including Plaintiff-Petitioners, and 150 unnamed

25 individuals alleged to be members of the gang, seeking to subject them to virtually

26 identical preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit and, in effect,

27 criminalize commonplace and lawful activities - such as going outside in the

28 1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 3 of 55 Page ID #:6

1 evening, walking into a restaurant or onto a bus, or attending a political meeting or

2 religious service- in an area of the City of Orange totaling approximately 3.78

3 miles, referred to as the "Safety Zone." For every act in violation of the

4 injunction, a person can receive up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

5

4. At least 61 individuals, including Plaintiff-Petitioners, contested the

6 OCDA's allegations and sought as best they could- most had no attorney

7 representing them- to hold the OCDA to the burden of proving the case by clear

8 and convincing evidence. However, to avoid having to meet this burden, the

9 OCDA dismissed the suit against these individuals, depriving them of their day in

10 court. Having intentionally short-circuited the judicial process insofar as the

11 individuals dismissed from the suit are concerned, the OCDA and OPD turned

12 around and served them with a permanent injunction obtained via default against

13 the gang. These individuals are now bound by the injunction and immediately

14 subject to arrest and criminal prosecution for any violation of its terms. Thus, the

15 OCDA and OPD subjected individuals to the injunction without the apparent

16 nuisance of having to prove its case against them. Such tactics fly in the face of

17 due process and violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

18 Constitution and Article I, section 7, of the California Constitution. Accordingly,

19 Defendant-Respondents should be prohibited from serving or enforcing the

20 injunction against Plaintiff-Petitioners unless and until they have had a meaningful

21 opportunity to contest the allegations against them and there has been a judicial

22 determination that the Order is justified and should issue against them.

23

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal civil rights claim under 28

25 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state

26 law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

27

6. Because Plaintiff-Petitioners assert that Defendant-Respondents have

28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 4 of 55 Page ID #:7

1 custody of them in violation of federal statutory and constitutional law, this Court

2 has jurisdiction to hear their challenge under the federal habeas corpus statute and

3 the Suspension Clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); U.S.

4 CONST. ART. I, cl. 9.

5

7. This Court may grant relief under the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C.

6 § 2241 et seq., the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331, the federal

7 civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §

8 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

9

8. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

10 Defendant-Respondents reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving

11 rise to this action occurred in, the County of Orange, California. Venue is also

12 proper because all of the Defendant-Respondents are amenable to service of

13 process in this district.

14

BACKGROUND

15 A. Gang Injunctions

16

9. More than a decade ago, the California Supreme Court authorized an

17 unprecedented law enforcement technique to deal with criminal street gangs -- the

18 issuance of a civil public nuisance injunction against alleged gang members that

19 restricted their activity in a four square-block area. People ex rei. Gallo v. Acuna,

20 929 P.2d 596 (Cal. 1997). But Acuna and subsequent appellate decisions have

21 recognized that this is an extraordinary remedy that must be applied with great

22 caution. !d.; People v. Englebrecht, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 738 (Cal. App. 2001 );

23 People ex rei. Reisig v. the Broderick Boys, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 64 (Cal. App. 2007).

24 Accordingly, the courts have made it clear that the prosecutor must meet a

25 heightened standard of proof by presenting "clear and convincing" evidence that

26 the necessary elements of a gang injunction are present before a trial court can

27 invoke its injunctive powers. Englebrecht, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 738.

28
3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 5 of 55 Page ID #:8

1

10. Gang injunctions warrant careful scrutiny because they prohibit

2 commonplace, lawful activities, and thus can have a pervasive impact on the

3 everyday lives of those bound and on their families. Indeed, the reason that gang

4 injunctions are so desirable from the perspective of law enforcement is precisely

5 because they enjoin lawful and innocent activity that can be easily detected. The

6 police can arrest individuals for violating the gang injunction, and the prosecutor

7 can charge them with contempt of court, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six

8 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 under California Penal Code§ 166.

9

11. This case underscores the need for courts to scrutinize the way in

1o which prosecutors obtain and police enforce gang injunctions.

11 B. The Initial Litigation

12

12. On February 17, 2009, the OCDA filed a civil complaint in the

13 Orange County Superior Court (the "OCSC") for preliminary and permanent

14 injunction to abate, as a public nuisance, the activities of an alleged criminal street

15 gang referred to in the complaint as the "Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street

16 Gang" ("OVC"). The civil complaint named not only OVC, but also 115 17 individuals1 and 150 Does, all of whom were alleged to be active members of the

18 gang. The named defendants included 32 juveniles. The complaint sought to

19 enjoin OVC, "115 of its members, agents, servants, employees, and all persons

20 acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in

21 association with them or any one of them" from engaging in certain activities-

22 some prohibited activities that are otherwise lawful, while other activities are

23 already prohibited by statute - in an area of the City of Orange totaling

24 approximately 3.78 miles, referred to as the "Safety Zone."

25

13. The Safety Zone, which constitutes approximately 16 percent of the

26

27

1 •

Tlle ~h;il complaint did not contain any specific allegations against

any particular md1v1dual.

28

4

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 6 of 55 Page ID #:9

1 City of Orange, consists of three separate territories in the City: (1) the

2 "Downtown Territory," which the complaint alleges is OVC's primary turf and

3 where a majority of the named defendants in the civil complaint live; (2) the

4 "Highland Territory," an area which the civil complaint alleges is claimed by

5 OVC's rival "Orange County Criminals" ("OCC") and that OVC is attempting to

6 take over and control; and (3) the "Hoover/Wilson Territory," which the complaint

7 alleges OVC is also trying to take over and control.

8

14. On February 23, 2009, the OCDA filed an Ex Parte Application for

9 Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction ("OSC"). In support of his

10 request, the OCDA filed a memorandum of points and authorities, 87 officer

11 declarations relating to alleged criminal activity by OVC members, including a 91-

12 page declaration by an officer designated as an expert witness, 110 officer

13 declarations relating to alleged criminal activity by alleged juvenile OVC

14 members, 10 "citizen" declarations relating to the gang's alleged nuisance activity,

15 and a chart showing alleged OVC gang convictions and juvenile sustained

16 petitions. On that date, the OCDA also filed ex parte applications for orders to

17 seal the declarations regarding the juveniles, the citizen declarations, and the chart

18 of convictions, all of which the OCSC granted that day.2

19

15. On or about February 24, 2009, during the early morning hours,

20 police officers from the OPD served the summons, complaint, and supporting

21 papers, totaling at least 500 pages, on numerous homes in the City of Orange and

22 neighboring cities. The package of documents that juveniles and their parents

23 received, including Plaintiff-Petitioner DOE, did not include any of the police

24 declarations regarding the juveniles; these declarations were identified in an

25

26 2 Specifically, the order to seal the citizen declarations prohibited their
27 disclosure to anyone, including the named defendants, until "such time as the Defendants secure an attorney or attorneys to represent them in this action."
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 7 of 55 Page ID #:10

1 "Index of Incidents" as sealed.3 Similarly, some of the packages served on

2 individual defendants who were between the ages of 18 and 21, including

3 Plaintiff-Petitioners VASQUEZ, LARA, and BASTIDA, did not include police

4 declarations which referred to alleged incidents that occurred when those

5 individuals were juveniles, and were also identified in the Index of Incidents as

6 sealed.

7

16. The individuals served were confused; they did not know how the

8 papers related to them - the pleadings did not include any specific allegations

9 about anyone, much of the evidence was sealed, and the unsealed evidence

10 relating to any individual was scattered throughout the various police officer

11 declarations - or what, if anything, was required of them. As news spread

12 throughout the community about the service of these papers, neighbors began

13 talking, organizing, and researching. They learned that some packets included an

14 Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction, which indicated that a hearing on

15 the OSC was scheduled for March 27, 2009 and that the defendants could file and

16 serve an opposition to the OSC by March 16, 2009. Other packets, however, did

17 not include a copy of the order at all; still others contained a copy of the order, but

18 the lines where a date could have been handwritten in were left blank.

19

17. On or about March 13, 2009, parents of at least four juveniles named

20 in the civil complaint, including Plaintiff-Petitioner DOE's mother, attempted to

21 file with the OCSC various documents on behalf of their children pro per,

22 including fee waivers, requests for extension of time to respond to the complaint

23 and OSC, and peremptory challenges to the judge that was assigned to the case.

24 However, the OCSC clerk refused to accept any paperwork on behalf of their

25
3 One of the parents telephoned the deputy district attorney assigned to 26 prosecute the litigation to request copies of the sealed declarations regarding her
son. The deputy OCDA advised the parent that he would not give those 27 declarations to her as they were filed under seal and that she would have to bring a
formal motion with the court to unseal the declarations.
28 6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 8 of 55 Page ID #:11

1 children because they had to first file applications to act as guardians ad litem and 2 they could not do so without an attorney. The parents could not afford to hire an 3 attorney to represent their children, and they would later learn that the OCSC

4 would not appoint attorneys.

5

18. On or about March 16, 2009, at least seven adult individuals named

6 in the civil complaint, in pro per, filed various documents with the OCSC,

7 including fee waivers, general denials to the complaint, peremptory challenges to

8 the judge, and ex parte applications to continue the March 27 hearing on the OSC.

9

19. All told, approximately 34 adult individuals filed either an answer or

10 a general denial in response to the civil complaint. No answers or general denials

11 were filed on behalf of the juvenile defendants.

12

20. On March 27, 2009, approximately 45 individuals named in the civil

13 complaint, including some juveniles accompanied by their parents and some

14 without their parents, "appeared" pro per at the hearing on the OSC. The OCSC

15 permitted the parents there to speak on behalf of their children, and the parents

16 explained their failed attempts to file documents with the OCSC on behalf of their

17 children. The OCSC continued hearing on the OSC for some juveniles and adults

18 to April 10, but did not provide those individuals with an opportunity to file a

19 written opposition.

20

21. At the March 27 hearing on the OSC, the OCSC would not allow the

21 individual defendants to present any facts as to why the preliminary injunction 22 should not be issued against them. The court limited the individuals to presenting

23 legal arguments only. None of the individuals present at the March 27 hearing

24 were represented by legal counsel and the OCSC advised them that they did not

25 have a right to a court-appointed attorney in a civil case.

26

22. On March 27, 2009, the OCSC granted the OCDA's request for a

27 preliminary injunction against approximately 31 adult defendants, some of whom

28 7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 9 of 55 Page ID #:12

1 appeared at the hearing, others who did not appear at all; and 17 juveniles, some of

2 whom "appeared" at the hearing, others who did not appear at all. The OCSC

3 continued the hearing on the OSC as to approximately six adults and nine

4 juveniles to April 10, 2009.

5

23. By April 10, 2009, approximately eleven individuals named in the

6 civil complaint, including two juveniles, secured representation of counsel. The 7 ACLU Foundation of Southern California ("ACLU") represented five individuals,

8 including one juvenile, pro bono. Attorney David Haas represented four

9 individuals, including one juvenile and Plaintiff-Petitioner LARA, pro bono.

10 Attorney Roland Rubalcava represented one individual and attorneys Mike Sethi

11 and Sanjay Sobti represented one individual.

12

24. The ACLU, on behalf of its clients, immediately filed an ex parte

13 application to continue the April 10, 2009 hearing on the OSC and to seek leave

14 to file written oppositions by April27, 2009, which the OCSC granted.

15

25. The ACLU, on behalf of its clients, also moved for an ex parte order

16 to produce any declarations that the OCDA intended to use in support of its 17 request for preliminary injunction and to allow an ACLU attorney to have access

18 to the sealed citizen declarations. The OCSC granted both of the ACLU's

19 requests. The next day an ACLU attorney went to the OCDA's office where she

20 was allowed to review the ten "citizen" declarations that the OCDA had submitted

21 as evidence of the existence of a public nuisance in the Safety Zone. The ACLU

22 attorney was prohibited from obtaining copies of the declarations under the OCSC

23 February 23, 2009 ex parte order and had to review the declarations in the

24 presence of the deputy OCDA and an OCDA investigator.

25

26. At the April 10, 2009 hearing on the OSC, at least twenty-eight

26 individuals appeared, including ten juveniles. Eleven of the individuals present

27 were represented by counsel, the remaining individuals appeared pro per. The

28
8 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 10 of 55 Page ID #:13

1 court also continued the hearing on the OSC regarding the eleven represented

2 individuals, including two juveniles, to May 7, 2009, and allowed those

3 individuals to file written oppositions to the OSC by April 27, 2009. The OCSC

4 granted the OCDA's request for preliminary injunction against seven adults and

5 denied the OCDA's request for preliminary injunction against five adults. On that

6 date, the OCSC indicated for the first time its concerns about issuing a court order

7 against unrepresented juveniles. Accordingly, the court continued the hearing on

8 the OSC for the unrepresented juveniles to May 7, 2009, to allow the OCSC and

9 the OCDA the opportunity to research the issue further.

10

27. On April27, 2009, the ACLU filed an application for appointment of

11 a guardian ad litem for its juvenile client, filed an answer to the complaint for that

12 juvenile, and filed written oppositions to the OCDA's request for preliminary

13 injunction, including expert declarations and approximately fifteen citizen

14 declarations denying the existence of a public nuisance in the Safety Zone.

15

28. On April27, 2009, attorney David Haas filed an application for

16 appointment of a guardian ad litem for his juvenile client, filed answers to the

17 complaint for all ofhis clients, and joined the ACLU written opposition to the

18 OCDA's request for preliminary injunction. Attorneys Mike Sethi and Sanjay

19 Sobti also joined the ACLU written opposition.

20

29. At the May 7, 2009 hearing on the OSC, the OCSC granted the

21 OCDA's request for preliminary injunction against two adults, and two

22 represented minors, and denied the OCDA's request, on the merits, against five

23 adults and one represented minor, and on procedural grounds, against nine

24 unrepresented juveniles. The OCSD continued the hearing as to one represented

25 adult to March 14, 2009. The OCSC concluded that juveniles who did not have

26 guardians ad litem and were not represented by counsel could void a court order or

27

28
9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 11 of 55 Page ID #:14

1 judgment.4 The OCSC therefore denied the preliminary injunctions against these 2 juveniles.5 In response, the OCDA indicated to the court that it intended to

3 formally request the court appoint guardians for the unrepresented juveniles so

4 that they could seek permanent injunctions against them. Of the eleven

5 individuals represented by counsel, the court issued the preliminary injunction

6 against only four.

7

30. On or about Aprill5, 20, and May 6, 2009, the ACLU propounded

8 extensive written discovery directed at the OCDA, totaling almost 1500 separate

9 requests and began noticing the depositions of OCDA witnesses. Responses to the

10 first round of written discovery were due on or before May 14, 2009. Other

11 individual defendants responded to discovery propounded by the OCDA.

12

31. On May 11, 2009, the OCDA filed a request for dismissal against 62

13 individuals, most of whom had responded to the complaint either by filing a

14 general denial or an answer, some of whom had counsel, others who were pro per,

15 and the approximately 26 unrepresented juveniles. The OCDA did not notify the

16 individual defendants of the dismissal until May 14, 2009, and in fact continued to

17 represent to the ACLU that the litigation was still active against the ACLU's

18 clients.

c. 19

Default Judgment Against OVC and the Permanent Injunction.

20

32. No general denial or answer was filed on behalf ofOVC.

21

33. The civil complaint, which was filed with the OCSC on February 17,

22 2009, alleged that OVC is "an unincorporated association of two or more

23 individuals commonly referred to as a criminal street gang that are joined together

24
4 In California, a judgment entered against a minor not represented by 25 legal counsel or a guardian ad litem is voidable and can be disaffirmed by the
mmor. Pac. Coast Joint Stock Land Bank ofS.F v. Clausen, 8 Cal. 2d 364 (1937).
26
5 The court, howeveri did not vacate its March 27, 2009 Order granting 27 preliminary injunctions against 7 unrepresented juveniles.

28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 12 of 55 Page ID #:15

1 for social, recreational, profit and other common purposes, and which acts by and

2 through its members, both individually and collectively." The next sentence of the

3 complaint alleged that "OVC is a 'criminal street gang' as defined in Penal Code§

4 186.22(±)."

5

34. The OCDA identified individual defendant, Patrick Philip DeHerrera,

6 to receive service on behalf of OVC.

7

35. On February 23, 2009, the OCDA filed an ex parte application for an

8 order to serve OVC pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section

9 416.40(c). Specifically, the OCDA requested the court issue an order allowing the

10 OCDA to serve Patrick Philip DeHerrera, who the OCDA alleged was an OVC

11 member. The OCDA stated "The Declarations on file prove that PATRICK

12 PHILIP DEHERRERA (aka Patrick Phillip DeHereba, Popeye), is an active

13 participant of Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang." Patrick DeHerrera

14 was not given notice of the OCDA's ex parte application.

15

36. On March 16, 2009, Patrick DeHerrera filed a general denial on his

16 own behalf denying that he is a member ofOVC. On May 7, 2009, the OCSC

17 denied the OCDA's request for preliminary injunction against Patrick DeHerrera.

18

37. On March 30, 2009, and in the days thereafter, the OCDA filed a

19 request for entry of default against OVC and individual defendants, including

20 juvenile defendants, who had not formally responded to the civil complaint by

21 filing a general denial or an answer, although many of the individuals had

22 appeared in the OCSC for one or more of the OSC hearings. The OCDA's request

23 for default was granted as to OVC and some of the adult individuals, and

24 judgment against OVC and others was entered May 14, 2009.

25 D. The Order

26

38. On May 14, 2009, the OCSC signed an Order for Permanent

27 Injunction (the "Order") against OVC, forty-four individuals who had not filed a

28 11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 13 of 55 Page ID #:16

1 formal response to the complaint and had default entered against them, and OVC's

2 "members, participants, agents, associates, servants, employees, aiders, and

3 abettors whose membership, participation, agency, association, service,

4 employment, aid, or abetment is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely

5 technical, and all persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the

6 direction of, or in association with [OVC] in a manner that is more than nominal,

7 passive, inactive, or purely technical."

8

39. The provisions of the Order obtained through default against OVC

9 are essentially the same as the relief sought in the original complaint and the

10 OCDA's request for preliminary injunction.

11

40. The Order imposes restrictions on the individuals subject to it within

12 the Safety Zone, which covers approximately 3.78 square miles, or 16 percent of

13 the entire City of Orange.

14

41. The Order applies not just to public places, but also to any building

15 "accessible by or to the public," or "in public view," which includes schools,

16 churches, grocery stores, community centers, to name only a few. Specifically,

17 this area includes at least twelve places of worship, four public schools and a

18 university, a hospital, City Hall and the police department, a train station, two post

19 offices, and countless businesses, including a Walmart, various supermarkets, and

20 the Village, the City's primary shopping mall.

21

42. Any person subject to the Order, who is alleged to have disobeyed

22 any of the terms, can be criminally prosecuted under Penal Codes§ 166(a)(4). See

23 CAL. PENAL CODE§ 166(a)(4) ("[E]very person guilty of any contempt of court ..

24 . is guilty of a misdemeanor.").

25

43. Section "a" of the Order, entitled "Do Not Associate," broadly

26 prohibits a person subject to the injunction from standing, sitting, walking,

27 driving, bicycling, gathering or appearing "in any public place, any place

28
12
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 14 of 55 Page ID #:17

1 accessible to the public, or in public view" with (1) "any person named herein";

2 (2) "anyone you know to be a member, participant, agent associate, servant,

3 employee, aider, or abettor of the Orange Varrio Cypress street gang"; and (3)

4 "anyone you know to be acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the

5 direction of, or in association with the Orange Varrio street gang."

6

44. Section b of the Order, entitled "Do Not Intimidate," states:

7

Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to

8

the public, or in public view, do not (1) confront,

9

intimidate, annoy, harass, threaten, challenge, provoke,

10

assault, or batter anyone in the Safety Zone, or (2)

11

remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know in

12

confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing,

13

threatening, challenging, provoking, assaulting, or

14

battering anyone in the Safety Zone.

15

45. Several provisions of the Order subject a person to criminal sanctions

16 for "remain[ing] in the presence" of certain classes of individuals. Specifically,

17 the Order makes it unlawful for a person to remain in the presence of anyone

18 known to be:

19

• unlawfully under the influence of any drug. (Order §c(3));

20

• unlawfully fighting or challenging another person to fight

21

(Order §e(2));

22

• using offensive words which are inherently likely to provoke

23

an immediate violent reaction (Order §e(6));

24

• present on any property not open to the public without the

25

voluntary consent of the owner, owner's agent, or the person in

26

lawful possession of the property. (Order §f(2));

27

• willfully and maliciously blocking the free passage of any

28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 15 of 55 Page ID #:18

1

person or vehicle on any street, walkway, sidewalk, driveway,

2

alleyway, or other area of public passage. (Order §g(2));

3

• maliciously spray painting, marking with marker pens, or

4

otherwise defacing property with graffiti or other inscribed

5

material on any public or private property not belonging to

6

him, her, or you. (Order §h(2));

7

• maliciously damaging or destroying real or personal property

8

not belonging to him, her, or you. (Order §h(4));

9

• unlawfully possessing spray paint cans, marker pens, knives,

10

screwdrivers, razor blades, nails, or other objects capable of

11

destroying, damaging, or defacing property. (Order §h(6));

12

• wearing, displaying, exhibiting, or possessing any clothes or

13

accessories that you know advertise, advance, promote,

14

represent, or refer to the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street

15

gang. (Order §j(2));

16

• unlawfully using, possessing, transporting, furnishing,

17

manufacturing, delivering, dispensing, distributing, or selling

18

any screwdrivers, porcelain spark plug chips, shaved keys,

19

picklocks, wire cutters, dent pullers, slingshots, steel shots,

20

spark plugs, "slimjims," "bump keys," or any instrument or

21

tool listed in Penal Code §466. (Order §k(2)).

22

46. Sectionj(l), entitled "Do Not Wear Gang Clothing" orders persons

23 subject to the Order not to "wear, display, exhibit or possess any clothes or

24 accessories you know to advertise, advance, promote, represent, or refer to the

25 Orange Varrio Cypress," including clothes that display various enumerated

26 combinations of the words "Orange," "Varrio," Old Towne Orange," and

27 "Cypress" and the color orange.

28 14
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 16 of 55 Page ID #:19

1

47. Section m imposes a curfew on adults and Section 1imposes a curfew

2 on mmors. Section m orders individuals subject to the injunction who are over the

3 age of 18 not to "remain in or upon any public place, vacant lot, or business

4 establishment unless require[d] for a lawful employment; for official school,

5 recreational, educational, charitable, entertainment, cultural, religious or other

6 constitutionally protected expressive activity; volunteering at a charitable 7 institution; for transport to or from the above activities; while on the sidewalk 8 directly in front of the person's dwelling; or for emergencies or interstate travel." 9 For minors served with the injunction, similar terms would apply, with additional

10 exceptions when accompanied by, or acting at the direction of, a parent or

11 guardian.

12

48. Sections n(4) and (5) prohibit a person "anywhere in any public place,

13 or any place accessible to the public" from "knowingly remain[ing] in the presence

14 of anyone in possession an open container of an alcoholic beverage," or

15 "knowingly remain in the presence of an open container of an alcoholic beverage."

16

49. The Order covers approximately 3.78 square miles, or 16 percent of

17 the entire City of Orange. For many of those served with the Order, including 18 Plaintiff-Petitioners, the area affected by the Order will include not only their 19 homes, but the homes of most friends and relatives, their schools, their places of 20 employment, the local restaurants they patronize- nearly every place they conduct

21 their daily lives.

22 E. Service of the Order

23

50. In early June 2009, the OCDA, by and through the Defendant-

24 Respondent OPD, began serving the Order on individuals who had been named as

25 individual defendants, including juveniles, in the initial litigation and who had

26 been voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA. Along with a copy of the Order, the

27 OCDA served a notice stating the following:

28
15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 17 of 55 Page ID #:20

1

YOU ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT ON

2

MAY 14, 2009, JUDGE KAZUHARU MAKINO

3

SIGNED AN ORDER FOR PERMANENT

4

INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ORANGE VARRIO

5

CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG.

6

7

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG ARE SUBJECT TO

8

THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

9

10

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG, WHETHER OR

11

NOT NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT OR

12

NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT AND LATER

13

DISMISSED FROM THE LAWSUIT AND

14

PARTICIPANTS, AGENTS, ASSOCIATES,

15

SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, AlDERS, AND

16

ABETTORS WHOSE MEMBERSHIP,

17

PARTICIPATION, AGENCY, ASSOCIATION,

18

SERVICE, EMPLOYMENT, AID, OR ABETMENT IS

19

MORE THAN NOMINAL, PASSIVE, INACTIVE, OR

20

PURELY TECHNICAL, AND ALL PERSONS

21

ACTING UNDER, IN CONCERT WITH, FOR THE

22

BENEFIT OF, AT THE DIRECTION OF, OR IN

23

ASSOCIATION WITH [OVC] IN A MANNER THAT

24

IS MORE THAN NOMINAL, PASSIVE, INACTIVE,

25

OR PURELY TECHNICAL, ARE SUBJECT TO THE

26

TERMS OF THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.

27

28
16
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 18 of 55 Page ID #:21

1

ALL PERSONS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL FACE

2

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO PENAL

3

CODE SECTION 166(a)(4) FOR ANY WILLFUL

4

VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION LISTED IN THE

5

PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.

6

51. The notice and service of this Order on individuals named in the

7 original lawsuit but later dismissed from it makes plain the OCDA and the OPD's

8 claim of authority to unilaterally determine, without proof, opposition, or judicial

9 oversight, who is a "member of the gang" and subject to the Order. Attached as

1o Exhibit A to this Complaint is a true and correct copy of the notice and Order.

11 F. Enforcement of the Order

12

52. Plaintiff-Petitioners are informed and believe that since June 2009,

13 when the OPD began serving the Order, the OPD has arrested a number of

14 individuals named in the original lawsuit but later dismissed for allegedly

15 violating the Order.

16

53. Plaintiff-Petitioners are informed and believe that on or about July 29,

17 2009, at approximately 12:30 p.m., the OPD arrested Plaintiff-Petitioner

18 VASQUEZ'S 17-year-old brother, who was named in the original litigation,

19 voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA, and later served with the Order, for walking

20 home from summer school with another boy who was a neighbor and friend. The

21 boy lives and goes to school in the Safety Zone. He is accused of associating with

22 a "known associate" ofOVC in violation of the Order.

23

54. Plaintiff-Petitioners are informed and believe that on or about August

24 1, 2009, the OPD arrested another 17-year-old boy, who was named in the original

25 litigation, voluntarily dismissed by OCDA, and later served with the Order, for

26 sitting on the steps of his apartment complex with a friend. The boy lives in the

27 Safety Zone. He is also accused of associating with a "known associate" of OVC

28
17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 19 of 55 Page ID #:22

1 in violation of the Order. The "known associate" of OVC is alleged to be

2 Plaintiff-Petitioner BASTIDA, who was voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA from

3 the original litigation.

4

55. Plaintiff-Petitioners are informed and believe that in mid-August,

5 2009, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the OPD arrested an 18-year-old male, who was

6 named in the original litigation, voluntarily dismissed by OCDA, and later served

7 with the Order. The male, who lives in the Safety Zone, was the passenger of a car

8 driven by a 22-year-old female, who also lives in the Safety Zone and who was

9 named in the original litigation, voluntarily dismissed by OCDA, but has not yet

1o been served with the Order. They were on their way to eat pizza and had just

11 parked in the parking lot of the restaurant when police arrested the male. He is

12 accused of associating with a "known associate" ofOVC in violation ofthe Order.

13

56. Plaintiff-Petitioners are informed and believe that on or about August

14 27, 2009, at approximately 5:00p.m., OPD arrested two male juveniles, ages 17

15 and 15, both of whom had been named in the original litigation, voluntarily

16 dismissed, and served with the Order. The boys were passengers of a car driven

17 by a 22-year-old female, who also lives in the Safety Zone and who was named in

18 the original litigation, voluntarily dismissed by OCDA, but has not yet been served

19 with the Order. The female had stopped at a gas station in the Safety Zone to get

20 gas when the police arrested the two juveniles. They are accused of associating

21 with "known associates" ofOVC in violation of the Order.

22

57. Plaintiff-Petitioners are informed and believe that on September 10,

23 2009, at approximately 4:30p.m., OPD arrested a 21-year-old male who was

24 named in the original litigation, voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA, and later

25 served with the Order. The male, who lives in the Safety Zone was visiting a

26 friend, who also lives in the Safety Zone. They were in the friend's garage and the

27 21-year-old male was drinking a beer. The garage door was open and in public

28
18 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 20 of 55 Page ID #:23

1 v1ew. He is accused of being in possession of alcohol in violation of the Order.

2

PARTIES

3 A. Plaintiff-Petitioner Manuel Vasquez

4

58. Plaintiff-Petitioner MANUEL VASQUEZ ("Plaintiff VASQUEZ" or

5 "Mr. VASQUEZ") is and at all relevant times was a resident of Orange County

6 California, residing in the City of Orange within the geographical area referred to

7 in the civil complaint as the Safety Zone. He is nineteen years old.

8

59. Mr. VASQUEZ was named as a defendant in the public nuisance

9 abatement action filed by OCDA on February 17, 2009 and on or about February

10 24, 2009, OPD served Mr. VASQUEZ with approximately 500 pages of

11 documents, including the summons and the civil complaint. Mr. VASQUEZ was

12 not served with the declarations referred to in the Index of Incidents as being filed

13 under seal and relating to him.

14

60. Because he could not afford to hire an attorney to represent him, Mr.

15 VASQUEZ, in pro per, filed a general denial to the civil complaint on March 16,

16 2009, filed a declaration on April 3, 2009 denying that he was a member of any

17 criminal street gang, and appeared at various court hearings to defend himself

18 against the OCDA's allegations.

19

61. On May 12, 2009, the OCDA voluntarily dismissed the nuisance

20 abatement action against Mr. VASQUEZ; but, in about June 2009, the OPD

21 personally served Mr. VASQUEZ with a copy ofthe Order, which OCDA

22 obtained via default against OVC, advising that Mr. VASQUEZ is subject to the

23 terms of the Order whether or not he was named in the original lawsuit and later

24 dismissed. Mr. VASQUEZ fears being arrested for conducting his day-to-day

25 activities and has significantly curtailed his activities as a result.

26

62. Mr. VASQUEZ has suffered and continues to suffer great harm by

27 being subject to the terms of the Order. He lives, works, and shops in the Safety

28
19 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 21 of 55 Page ID #:24

1 Zone. He feels like a prisoner in his own home, although he is not on probation or

2 parole, because he fears being targeted by the police and accused of violating the

3 terms of the Order for engaging in routine, day-to-day activities. One of Mr.

4 VASQUEZ's brothers, whom he lives with, was dismissed from the original

5 litigation and then served with the Order. Mr. VASQUEZ is afraid of going

6 anywhere with his brother, because he fears being stopped, searched, and arrested

7 if they are seen together or arrive or leave home at the same time.

8 B. Plaintiff-Petitioner Miguel Bernal Lara

9

63. Plaintiff-Petitioner MIGUEL BERNAL LARA ("Plaintiff LARA" or

10 "Mr. LARA") is and at all relevant times was a resident of Orange County

11 California, residing in the City of Orange. He is twenty years old.

12

64. Plaintiff LARA was named as a defendant in the public nuisance

13 abatement action filed by the OCDA on February 17, 2009 and on or about

14 February 24, 2009, the OPD served Plaintiff LARA with approximately 500 pages

15 of documents, including the summons and the civil complaint. LARA was not

16 served with the declarations referred to in the Index of Incidents as being filed

17 under seal and relating to him.

18

65. Because he could not afford an attorney to represent him, Mr. LARA

19 appeared at various court hearings, in pro per, to defend himself against the

20 OCDA's allegations. Eventually, Mr. LARA was able to obtain the services of an

21 attorney, David Haas, to represent him on a pro bono basis. On or about April27,

22 2009, Mr. LARA, by and through his attorney, filed an answer to the civil

23 complaint and filed a motion to join the memorandum of points and authorities

24 and expert declarations filed by the ACLU on behalf of their clients, in opposition

25 to the OCDA's OSC.

26

66. On May 12, 2009, the OCDA voluntarily dismissed the nuisance

27 abatement action against Mr. LARA; but, in about June 2009, the OPD personally

28
20 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 22 of 55 Page ID #:25

1 served Mr. LARA with a copy of the Order, which OCDA obtained via default

2 against OVC, advising that Mr. LARA is subject to the terms of the Order whether

3 or not he was named in the original lawsuit and later dismissed. Mr. LARA fears

4 being arrested for conducting his day-to-day activities and has significantly

5 curtailed his activities as a result.

6

67. Although Mr. LARA no longer lives in the Safety Zone, he has

7 suffered and continues to suffer great harm from being subject to the terms of the

8 Order. Mr. LARA has participated in several political rallies, marches, and

9 demonstrations, opposing the OCDA's actions and methods in seeking a gang

10 injunction in the City of Orange and wishes to continue such activity, but will not

11 do so because he fears being arrested. Mr. LARA, who lives in the City of

12 Orange, is afraid to attend his City's council meetings, because they are held at

13 city hall, which is located in the Safety Zone, and he fears that he will be arrested

14 for challenging the OCDA and OPD's policies and practices or if someone the

15 police believe to be a gang member is also in attendance. Mr. LARA also takes an

16 alternate route to work to avoid having to drive through the Safety Zone and being

17 seen in the vicinity of anyone alleged to be an OVC member.

18 C. Plaintiff-Petitioner Gabriel Bastida

19

68. Plaintiff-Petitioner GABRIEL BASTIDA ("PlaintiffBASTIDA" or

20 "Mr. BASTIDA") is and at all relevant times was a resident of Orange County

21 California, residing in the City of Santa Ana. He is eighteen years old.

22

69. PlaintiffBASTIDA was named as a defendant in the public nuisance

23 abatement action filed by the OCDA on February 17, 2009 and on or about

24 February 24, 2009, the OPD served PlaintiffBASTIDA with approximately 500

25 pages of documents, including the summons and the civil complaint. BASTIDA

26 was not served with the declarations referred to in the Index of Incidents as being

27 filed under seal and relating to him.

28
21 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 23 of 55 Page ID #:26

1

70. Because Mr. BASTIDA could not afford an attorney to represent him,

2 he appeared at various court hearings, in pro per, with the assistance of his mother,

3 to defend himself against the OCDA's allegations. Although Mr. BASTIDA filed

4 a Peremptory Challenge under California Civil Procedure Code section 170.6 as to

5 the judge originally assigned, as well as a declaration denying that he is a gang

6 member, he was not aware that he had to formally respond to the civil complaint,

7 or how he would do that. He therefore did not file a general denial, an answer, or

8 any other document formally responding to the civil complaint.

9

71. On or about April27, 2009, the OCDA filed a request for entry of

10 default against Mr. BASTIDA, which the clerk of the OCSC entered that same

11 day. On or about May 12, 2009, Mr. BASTIDA was served with the OCDA's

12 request for court judgment against him, and on May 15, 2009, Mr. BASTIDA, 13 with his mother's help, filed a request to vacate the judgment under default. On or

14 about July 10, 2009, the court granted Mr. BASTIDA's request, set aside the

15 default, and set a case management conference.

16

72. On July 16, 2009, the OCDA dismissed the nuisance abatement

17 action against Mr. BASTIDA; but, on or about August 13, 2009, the OPD 18 personally served Mr. BASTIDA with a May 14,2009 Order for Permanent

19 Injunction, which the OCDA obtained via default against the alleged gang OVC,

20 advising that Mr. BASTIDA is subject to the terms of the Order whether or not he

21 was named in the original lawsuit and later dismissed. Mr. BASTIDA fears being

22 arrested for conducting his day-to-day activities and has significantly curtailed his

23 activities as a result.

24

73. Mr. BASTIDA has suffered and continues to suffer great harm by

25 being subject to the terms of the Order. Although Plaintiff BASTIDA no longer

26 lives in the Safety Zone, his close relatives live in the Safety Zone. He used to

27 visit his relatives regularly, but no longer does for fear of being stopped and

28
22 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 24 of 55 Page ID #:27

1 arrested by the police for allegedly violating the Order. One of Mr. BASTIDA's

2 brothers, a juvenile, whom he lives with, was dismissed from the original litigation

3 and then served with the Order. Mr. BASTIDA is afraid to go to visit his relatives

4 with his brother, which they usually did together, because he fears being stopped,

5 searched, and arrested if they go to his relative's house or arrive there at the same

6 time.

7 D. Plaintiff-Petitioner James Doe

8

74. Plaintiff-Petitioner JAMES DOE, a minor, ("Plaintiff DOE" or

9 "DOE") is and at all relevant times was a resident of Orange County California.

10 Plaintiff-Petitioner DOE bring this litigation, by and through his next friend,

11 JANE DOE, his mother.

12

75. Plaintiff DOE was named as a defendant in the public nuisance

13 abatement action filed by OCDA on February 17, 2009 and on or about February

14 24, 2009, OPD served Plaintiff DOE and his mother, JANE DOE with

15 approximately 500 pages of documents, including the summons and the civil

16 complaint. Neither DOE nor JANE DOE was served with the declarations referred

17 to in the Index of Incidents as being filed under seal and relating to him.

18

76. On or about March 13, 2009, JANE DOE, along with other parents of

19 juveniles named in the civil complaint, attempted to file various documents on

20 behalf of DOE with the OCSC, including a fee waiver, a request for extension of

21 time to respond to the complaint and OSC, and a peremptory challenge to the

22 judge that was assigned to the case. However, the OCSC clerk refused to accept

23 any paperwork on behalf of DOE, or any other juvenile. The clerk ofOCSC

24 advised JANE DOE, and other parents, that they would first have to file an

25 application to act as their children's guardians ad litem, but to do so they would

26 have to hire an attorney. DOE's mother could not afford to hire an attorney to

27 represent DOE.

28
23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 25 of 55 Page ID #:28

1

77. Although JAMES DOE could not file a formal response to the civil

2 complaint because he could appear pro per, did not have an attorney, and could not

3 afford to hire one, he and his mother appeared at various court hearings to defend

4 himself against OCDA's allegations.

5

78. On May 12, 2009, the OCDA voluntarily dismissed the nuisance

6 action against DOE; but, in or about June 2009, the OPD personally served DOE

7 and his mother with a May 14, 2009 Order for Permanent Injunction, which

8 OCDA obtained via default against the alleged gang OVC, advising that Plaintiff

9 DOE is subject to the terms of the Order whether or not he was named in the

10 original lawsuit and later dismissed. Plaintiff DOE fears being arrested for

11 conducting his day-to-day activities and has significantly curtailed his activities as

12 a result.

13

79. Plaintiff DOE has suffered and continues to suffer great harm by

14 being subject to the terms of the Order. Although Plaintiff DOE does not live in

15 the Safety Zone, his grandmother and his aunt do. He used to visit his

16 grandmother and his aunt regularly, but no longer does for fear of being stopped

17 and arrested by the police for allegedly violating the Order. One of DOE's

18 brothers, whom he lives with, was named in the original litigation, later dismissed

19 and then served with the Order. DOE is afraid that he will be stopped, searched,

20 and arrested if he and his brother go to his grandmother's house together or arrive

21 there at the same time.

22 E. Defendant-Respondents

23

80. Defendant-Respondent TONY RACKAUKAS, is the District

24 Attorney for the County of Orange ("Defendant OCDA" or "OCDA"). As such,

25 he is responsible for overseeing and managing the Orange County District

26 Attorney's office. Defendant RACKAUKAS is sued in his official capacity. In

27 his official capacity, he is the legal custodian of Plaintiff-Petitioners, and others

28 24
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 26 of 55 Page ID #:29

1 similarly situated.

2

81. Defendant-Respondent ROBERT GUSTAFSON, is the Chief of

3 Police for the City of Orange Police Department ("Defendant OPD"). As such, he

4 is responsible for overseeing and managing the Orange Police Department.

5 Defendant GUSTAFSON is sued in his official capacity. In his official capacity,

6 he is the legal custodian of Plaintiff-Petitioners, and others similarly situated.

7

82. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

8 associate, representative or otherwise, of the defendant-respondents identified

9 herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff-Petitioners, who

10 therefore sue these defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiff-Petitioners will

11 amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 10

12 when they have been ascertained. Does 1 through 10 are in some manner legally 13 responsible for the wrongs and injuries alleged herein.

14

83. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, unless otherwise alleged,

15 each Defendant-Respondent was the agent, employee, and/or co-conspirator of

16 every other Defendant-Respondent, and in doing the acts alleged in this

17 Complaint, was acting within the course, scope, and authority of that agency or

18 employment, and in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate Plaintiff-Petitioners'

19 constitutional rights, with the knowledge and consent of each of the other

20 Defendant-Respondents.

21

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22

84. Plaintiff-Petitioners VASQUEZ, LARA, BASTIDA and DOE bring

23 this action on their own behalf and all other persons similarly-situated, pursuant to

24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), or in the alternative, as a

25 representative action pursuant to a procedure analogous to Rules 23(a) and

26 23(b)(2). See Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 891 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on

27 other grounds, Jama v. ICE, 543 U.S. 335 (2005) (allowing class action habeas

28 25
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 27 of 55 Page ID #:30

1 petition). Plaintiff-Petitioners bring this action individually and on behalf of a

2 class defined as:

3

All persons named as individual defendants in People v.

4

Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al.,

5

Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739,

6

dated February 17, 2009, who appeared or attempted to

7

appear, either pro per or through an attorney, in the

8

Orange County Superior Court to defend themselves and

9

were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County

10

District Attorney's office and have now been served or

11

will be served with the Order for Permanent Injunction

12

against "Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang"

13

dated May 14, 2009, and therefore subject to its

14

provisions, but do not have contempt proceedings

15

currently pending against them.

16

85. Additionally, Plaintiff-Petitioner JAMES DOE, brings this action

17 individually and on behalf of the following sub-class:

18

All juveniles named as individual defendants in People

19

v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al.,

20

Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739,

21

dated February 17, 2009, who attempted to appear in the

22

Orange County Superior Court, either individually or

23

through a parent, but could not have a guardian ad litem

24

appointed because neither the juveniles nor their parents

25

could afford an attorney and therefore could not and did

26

not formally appear; were voluntarily dismissed by the

27

Orange County District Attorney's office and have now

28
26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 28 of 55 Page ID #:31

1

been served or will be served with the Order for

2

Permanent Injunction against "Orange Varrio Cypress

3

Criminal Street Gang" dated May 14, 2009, and

4

therefore subject to its provisions, but do not have

5

contempt proceedings currently pending against them.

6

86. The proposed class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

7 23(a)(l). At least 60 individuals were, like Plaintiff-Petitioners, named as 8 individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, 9 appeared or attempted to appear in the case, thereby being willing and available to

10 defend against allegations in the complaint, and were ultimately voluntarily 11 dismissed by OCDA. To date, Plaintiff-Petitioners' counsel is aware of more than 12 20 other class members in this District who, like Plaintiff-Petitioners, have been 13 served with the Order and thereby subjected to its terms. Plaintiff-Petitioners 14 anticipate that Defendant-Respondents will subject other individuals similarly 15 situated to Plaintiff-Petitioners to the terms of the Order in the future. Joinder of

16 all members of this class is therefore impracticable.

17

87. The identity of the class members is known by Defendant-

18 Respondents and is readily ascertainable from their records.

19

88. The proposed class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

20 23(a)(2). There are several common questions of law and fact in the action. These

21 include: (1) whether being subject to the terms of the Order deprives an individual

22 of a liberty or property interest; (2) whether the individuals who were previously

23 dismissed as defendants from the original litigation have been denied adequate

24 procedural protections by now being subject to the terms of the Order in violation

25 of the Due Process Clause.

26

89. The proposed class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

27 23(a)(3). The claims of the named Plaintiff-Petitioner are typical of the claims of

28
27 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 29 of 55 Page ID #:32

1 the proposed class. Like the proposed class members, the named Plaintiff-

2 Petitioners are subject to the terms of the Order without having been afforded 3 notice and an opportunity to be heard as required by the Due Process Clause. 4 Plaintiff-Petitioners anticipate that Defendant-Respondents will serve the Order in 5 the future on other proposed class members, thereby subjecting them to the terms

6 of the Order without due process.

7

90. The proposed class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8 23(a)(4). The named Plaintiff-Petitioners will fairly and adequately represent the 9 interests of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief identical to

1o the relief sought by all class members, and because they have no interests adverse

11 to other class members. Moreover, named Plaintiff-Petitioners are represented by 12 pro bono counsel from the ACLU. The ACLU and their attorneys have extensive

13 civil rights litigation experience and broad experience litigating class actions.

14

91. The proposed class meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

15 23(b)(2). Defendant-Respondents have acted on grounds generally applicable to 16 the class through their policy and practice of subjecting individuals who were

17 named as defendants in the People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street

18 Gang, whom the OCDA voluntarily dismissed, to the Order without providing due

19 process oflaw, making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.

20

LEGAL BACKGROUND

21

92. This case involves the egregious abuse of government power and

22 denial of due process by the Defendant-Respondent OCDA and Defendant-

23 Respondent OPD. The OCDA apparently intended to pursue the public nuisance 24 abatement action against Plaintiff-Petitioners and others similarly situated, as long

25 as it was uncontested. Indeed, as soon as some of the named individuals, 26 including Plaintiff-Petitioners, attempted to contest, the OCDA dismissed the suit

27 against them, thereby preempting any judicial determination as to whether these

28
28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 30 of 55 Page ID #:33

1 individuals should be subject to the permanent injunction. The OCDA and OPD

2 then turned around and served them with a permanent injunction obtained via

3 default against the gang. These individuals are now subject to the terms of the

4 Order without the OCDA and OPD having to prove its case against them.

5

93. Plaintiff-Petitioners, and other similarly situated, have a liberty

6 interest in their fundamental rights of free speech, freedom from vague and

7 arbitrary laws, and free movement, all of which are guaranteed by the state and

8 federal constitutions. The Order, when served on Plaintiff-Petitioners, and others

9 similarly situated, deprives them of these fundamental rights. The Order

1o proscribes otherwise legal acts and, in effect, creates a personal criminal code for

11 each individual who Defendant-Respondent decides, in their own unfettered

12 discretion, is subject to its terms. The deprivation of liberty interests thus stems

13 from the Order and the Defendant-Respondents' service of it on Plaintiff-

14 Petitioners, and others similarly situated, who now risk contempt prosecutions for

15 engaging in lawful and socially desirable conduct.

16

94. The Order, moreover, subjects Plaintiff-Petitioners, and others

17 similarly situated, to conditions that significantly confine and restrain their

18 freedom and that are not otherwise shared by the public generally. Such

19 restrictions on individual liberty subject a person to "custody" although there is no

20 physical confinement. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236,239 (1963); id. at

21 242 ("It is not relevant that conditions and restrictions such as these may be

22 desirable and important parts of the rehabilitative process; what matters is that

23 they significantly restrain petitioner's liberty to do those things which in this

24 country free men are entitled to do."); see also In re Petersen, 331 P.2d 24 (Cal.

25 1958) (holding that a bailee is constructively in custody because the purpose of

26 bail is to assure that he will attend the court when his presence is required). Thus,

27 Defendant-Respondents have custody of Plaintiff-Petitioners, and other similarly

28
29
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 31 of 55 Page ID #:34

1 situated, in violation of federal constitutional law.

2

95. A fundamental aspect of due process is that a person deprived of a

3 liberty interest be given an opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a

4 meaningful manner." Brewster v. Board ofEduc. ofthe Lynwood Unified Sch.

5 Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 984 (9th Cir. 1998). Indeed, "the root requirement of the Due

6 Process Clause is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before

7 he is deprived of any significant protected interest." Cleveland Bd. ofEduc. v.

8 Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985). Such a hearing helps ensure fairness for

9 the individual and serves to protect citizens from arbitrary government

10 encroachment.

11

96. The OCDA's and the OPD's dismiss-and-serve strategy has

12 thoroughly subverted the judicial process and denied Plaintiff-Petitioners and

13 others similarly situated their constitutional right to due process. As a result of the

14 OCDA's actions, the individuals dismissed from the suit not only have been

15 subjected to an injunction without any opportunity to oppose it, but they now find

16 themselves in the constitutionally untenable position of abiding by an injunction

17 that no court has determined to be lawful or justified as applied to them and

18 curtailing their daily activities and the lawful exercise of their freedoms or

19 continuing to live their lives and exercise their freedoms and risk arrest and

20 incarceration for violating the injunction. The opportunity to defend against

21 criminal contempt proceedings, following arrest and incarceration, is a pale

22 substitute for the opportunity, which the OCDA has eliminated, to defend against a

23 civil suit and to oppose issuance of the injunction in the first instance. Indeed, the

24 opportunity to defend in criminal contempt proceedings comes too late to prevent

25 precious constitutional freedoms and interests from being affected by this

26 unjustified and unlawful injunction.

27 Ill

28
30 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 32 of 55 Page ID #:35

1

2

3

CAUSES OF ACTION

4

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5

[Against Each and Every Defendant]

6

(42 U.S.C. § 1983 -Procedural Due Process

7

Under U.S. Const. Amend XIV)

8

97. Plaintiff-Petitioners reallege and replead all the allegations of the

9 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint and incorporate them here by reference.

10

98. Defendant-Respondents acted under color of law.

11

99. The acts of Defendant-Respondents deprived Plaintiffs and those

12 similarly situated of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

13 States Constitution.

14

100. Specifically, by subjecting Plaintiff-Petitioners and those similarly

15 situated, or causing them to be subjected, to the terms of the Order, Defendant-

16 Respondents deprived Plaintiff-Petitioners and those similarly situated of their

17 constitutionally protected liberty or property interests without adequate procedural

18 protections.
19

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

[Against Each and Every Defendant]

21

(Procedural Due Process Under Cal. Const. art. I,§ 7)

22

10 1. Plaintiffs reallege and replead all the allegations of the preceding

23 paragraphs of this Complaint and incorporate them here by reference.

24

102. By subjecting Plaintiff-Petitioners and those similarly situated, or

25 causing them to be subject to, the terms of the Order, Defendant-Respondents

26 deprived Plaintiff-Petitioners and those similarly situated of their constitutionally

27 protected liberty or property interests without adequate procedural protections.

28
31 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 33 of 55 Page ID #:36

1

103. Defendant-Respondents' conduct deprived Plaintiff-Petitioners and

2 those similarly situated of their liberty without due process of law in violation of

3 Article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

4

PRAYERFORRELIEF

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Petitioners respectfully request that this Court

6 enter judgment in their favor as follows:

7

a. Assume jurisdiction of this matter;

8

b. Temporarily enjoin Defendant-Respondents and their directors,

9 officers, agents, and employees from enforcing the terms of Order against

10 Plaintiff-Petitioners and those similarly situated without first providing them with

11 a full constitutionally-adequate hearing;

12

c. Certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 (or other analogous

13 procedures) as described above, pursuant to a motion for class certification to be

14 filed shortly;

15

d. Appoint Plaintiff-Petitioners as Class Representatives;

16

e. Appoint Plaintiff-Petitioners counsel as Class Counsel;

17

f. Declare that the actions, policies and practices of Defendant-

18 Respondents described above constitute violations of federal and state

19 constitutionallaw;

20

g. Permanently enjoin Defendant-Respondents and their directors,

21 officers, agents, and employees from enforcing the terms of Order against

22 Plaintiff-Petitioners and those similarly situated without first providing them with

23 a full constitutionally-adequate hearing;

24

h. Grant a writ of habeas corpus and order that Plaintiff-Petitioners and

25 those similarly situated are entitled to a constitutionally-adequate hearing before

26 Defendant-Respondents may significantly confine and restrain the freedom of

27 Plaintiff-Petitioners or others similarly situated;

28
32 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 34 of 55 Page ID #:37

1

1. Award Plaintiff-Petitioners their fees, expenses, costs, and other

2 disbursements associated with the filing and maintenance of this action, including

3 reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to any applicable provision of law; and

4

J. Award such other equitable and further relief as the Court deems just

5 and proper.

6
7 Dated: September tlJ , 2009

8

9

10
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 33
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 35 of 55 Page ID #:38
Exhibit A

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 36 of 55 Page ID #:39

NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT ON MAY 14, 2009, JUDGE KAZUHARU MAKINO SIGNED AN ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG, WHETHER OR NOT NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL

LAWSUIT OR NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT AND LATER DISMISSED

FROM THE LAWSUIT AND ALL PARTICIPANTS, AGENTS; ASSOCIATES,

SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, AlDERS AND ABETTORS WHOSE MEMBERSHIP,

PARTICIPATION, AGENCY, ASSOCIATION, SERVICE, EMPLOYMENT, AID OR

ABETMENT IS MORE THAN NOMINAL, PASSIVE, INACTIVE, OR PURELY

TECHNICAL, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER, IN CONCERT WITH, FOR

THE BENEFIT OF, AT THE DIRECTION OF, OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH

ORANGE VARRIO .CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG IN ANY MANNER

(

THAT IS MORE THAN NOMINAL, PASSIVE, INACTIVE, OR PURELY

TECHNICAL, ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT GANG

INJUNCTION.

(PEOPLE EX REL. GALLO V ACUNA (1997) 14 CAL.4™ 1090, 1125, BERGER V SUPERIOR COURT (1917) 175 CAL. 719, 721, IN RE BERRY (1968) 68 CAL.2D 137, 155-156, PEOPLE EX REL. TOTTEN V COLONIA CHIQUES (2007) 156 CAL.APP.4™ 31, 45, AND PEOPLE V. CONRAD (1997) 55 CAL.APP.4™ 896,902)

ALL PERSON DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 166(a)(4) FOR ANY WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION LISTED IN THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.

NOTICE

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 37 of 55 Page ID #:40

AVISO

LE PONEN POR ESTE MEDIO EN EL AVISO QUE ESTE 14 DE MAYO DE 2009, JUEZ QUE KAZUHARU MAKINO FIRMO UNA ORDEN PARA LA PRESCRIPCION PERMANENTE CONTRA LA CUADRILLA CRIMINAL DE LA CALLE DEL CIPRES ANARANJADO DE VARRIO.

TODOS LOS MIEMBROS DE LA CUADRILLA ESTAN CONFORME A LOS TERMINOS DE LA PRESCRIPCION PERMANENTE.

TODOS LOS MIEMBROS DE LA CUADRILLA, SI 0 NO NOMBRADO EN EL

PLEITO ORIGINAL 0 NOMBRADO
MAs ADELANTE DEL PLEITO Y

EN EL PLEITO ORIGINAL Y DESPEDIDO DE TODOS LOS PARTICIPANTES, LOS

AGENTES, LOS ASOCIADOS, LOS CRIADOS, LOS EMPLEADOS, LOS AlDERS Y

EL COMPLICE QUE CALIDAD DE MIEMBRO, PARTICIPACION, AGENCIA,

ASOCIACION, SERVICIO, EMPLEO, AYUDA 0 ES ABETMENT MAs QUE

NOMINAL, PASNO, INACTNO, 0 PURAMENTE TECNICO Y TODAS LAS

PERSONAS QUE ACTUAN DEBAJO, EN CONCIERTO CON, EN.BENEFICIO DE,

EN LA DIRECCION, 0 EN ASOCIACION CON DE LA CUADRILLA CRIMINAL

DE LA CALLE MANERA QUE

DEL CIPRES
SEA MAs

ANARANJADO DE VARRIO QUE NOMINAL, PASNOS,

DE CUALQUIER INACTNOS, 0

PURAMENTE TECNICOS ESTAN CONFORME A LOS TERMINOS DE LA

PRESCRIPCION PERMANENTE DE LA CUADRILLA.

(GENTE REL EX. GALLO V ACUNA (1997) 14 CAL.4TH 1090, 1125, CORTE SUPERIOR DE BERGER V(1917) 175 CALOR.iAS. 719,721, EN BAYA RE (1968) 68 CAL2D 137, 155-156, GENTE REL EX. TOITEN V COLONIA CHiffJ!ES (2007) 156 CALAPP.4TH 31, 45, Y GENTE V. CONRADO (1997) 55 CAL.APP.4 896, 902)

TODA LA PERSONA DESCRITA AErnrrBA HARA FRENTE AL

PROCESAMIENTO CRIMINAL CONFORME A LA SECCION PENAL 166 (4) del CODIGO PARA CUALQUIER VIOLACION VOLUNTARIOSA

(a) DE

CUALQUIER PROIVISON ENUMERADO EN LA PRESCRIPCION

PERMANENTE de Ia CUADRILLA.

AVISO

CaI se 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 38 of 55 Page ID #:41

1

r--, r ~ ?'\

. ~ ·,

. ";.

~

2

SUPERiO;:; ::.u -~-n c: ::;;:;,i.JFDRNIA

COUNTY OF ORP-!-.!Gi:

3

CP>l~R!Y. JU3TICE CC:1\!TER

4

MAY 14 2009

5

6

7

8

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

9

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

10

11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 30-2009-00118739

12

13

Plaintiff,

1!-iROPOSEBl ORDER FOR ERMANENT INJUNCTION

14

v.

15 ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS

16 STREET GANG (an unincorporated aSsociation)

17

STEVE ABAD (aka Steven Abad), IVAN AB (aka Ivan Dector Abad, Shadey, ·Shady)

18 ALEXANDER CISNEROS AGUIRRE (aka Ale

19

Garcia, Alejandro Aguirre, Alex Aguirre, Ale Cisnoros Aguirre, Pablo Gon7.ales, Cartoon), JO

20 ANTHONY ALVARADO (aka Philip Estrada

21

Joseph Alvarado, Felipe DeJesus Estrada, Joe Stranger), MIGUEL ALVIDREZ (aka Migue

22 · Aolvidrez, Sleeper, Sleepy), MONIQUE AMBE

23

ALVARADO, WILLIAM ARANDA (aka Willi Chavez Aranda, Willie Aranda, William Chave

24 Aranda, William Chavez, Willy Chavez Aranda

25

William Aranda Jr., William Chavez Aranda Jr. Casper), ERIKA VANESSA ARANDA (aka Eri

26 Mariscal Aranda, Erika Vanessa Arando, Eri

27

Vanessa Miranda, Gumby, Ms. Smokey) RAYMOND MARTIN ATENCIO (aka Ra

28 Atencio, Ra ond Martin Attencio, Re

1

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 39 of 55 Page ID #:42

I Martin Atencio, Rey Atencio, Reymond Marti

2

Atencio, IV, Raymond Martin Atencio, N, Raymon Atencio, Ray Ray, Rey Rey, Demon), JESUS JOS

3 AVILA (aka Jesus Avila, Jesus Avila Gonzalez

4

Chewy), JAVIER AVILA (aka Jesus Avila, Javie Avila Gonzalez, Javi, Javy, Smokey), JOSE AYAL

5 (aka Jose Ayala, Jr., Shadow), JOSEPH ANTHO

6

BAEZ (aka Joseph Anthony Bael, Spooky, Spooks Spookster), RANDY BASTIDA (aka Randy Willi

7 Bastida), GABRIEL BASTIDA (aka Gabriel Nasari

8

Bastida), WAN BENITEZ, JR. (aka Juan) WILLIAM RYAN BOOKER (aka Ryan Booker

9 Stalker), JOSHUA ALLAN BRANCH (aka Jos

I 0

Allen Branch, Joshua Branch, Joshua A. Branch Joshua Allen Branch, Cricket), Al'IDRE

II CALDERON (aka Andrew Michael Calderon, Kid)

I2

BRIAN JAVIER CAMACHO, JAVIE CAMACHO (aka Brian Gutierrez, Laughing Boy)

13 LAURO CAMPOS (aka Laura Campos, Laur

I4

Cumpos, Lauro Campos-Rosas, Goofy, Midnight) JESUS COMEA CANO (aka Jesus Cano Correa

I5 Jesus Cantu Correa, Chewee, Chewy, Chuy)

16

CELERINO CARBAJAL (aka Whisper), ANGE ANTHONY CERVANTES (aka Playboy)

17 ENRIQUE OCHOA CERVANTES (aka Ric

18

Cervantes, Soldier Ricky), RENE RAYMO CHAVEZ (aka Indio), ANNA SILVIA COOPE

19 (aka Ana Silvia Nogales, Anna Silvia Nogales, Ms

20

Shaggy), I\.HCHAEL Gf~BRAITH SOOPER (akMichael Galbnth, Mike Cooper, Michael Ortiz

. ... ~- . . -. ...... .

·' ..

21 Michael Cooper, Jesse Soto, Cartoon, Shaggy

22

Smokey), MARTIN SALVADOR CORNEJO ( Lil Martin, Rabbit), RUBEN CANDILL

23 CRUZ (aka Reuben Cruz, Ruben Cruz, Rube

24

Candellarria Cruz, Pirate), MIGUEL ALAHONDR CRUZ, LOUIS MIGUEL DEHERRERA (aka Louie

· 25 Tiger), ROY DAVID DEHERRERA (aka Patrie

26

Phillip DeHerrera, Pat DeHerrera, Patrick Phili DeHerrea, Patrie Philip DeHerera, Patrick Phili

27 Herra, P. Herrera, Roy DeHerrera, Patrie

28 DeHerrera, Patrick Philli Herrera, Patrick P.

2 f¥wposedl Order for Permanent Iniunction

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 40 of 55 Page ID #:43

1 DeHerrera, Patrick Philip Herrera) ,PATRIC

2

PHILIP DEHERRERA (aka Patrick Philli DeHerceba, Patarick Philip DeHerrea, Popeye)

3 HECTOR DELATORRE JR. (aka Hector Junio

4

Delatorre, Matthew Montoya, Scrap, Scraps, Skrap) JAVIER ESPARZA (aka John David Esparz

5 Gizmo), HUGO ADRIAN ESTEVES (aka Blaze)

CHRISTIAN MOISES GALINDO (aka Christi 6 Msoses Galindo, Cristian Moises Galindo, Christi

7 Mmoises Galindo, Anthony Perez, Edgar Galindo)

ANDREW PAUL GARCIA (aka Andrew Garcia 8 Youngster, Wacko), JAVIER HUGO GARCIA (

9 Negro), JOEL JOSEPH GARCIA (aka Joseph F

10

Garcia, Joseph Franklin Garcia), MIGUEL ANGE GARCiA (aka Bunny, Rabbit), RIC

11 ANTHONY GARCIA (aka Richard Garcia, Shorty

12

Little Richard, Rich, Valarta), RONNIE ANDRE GARCIA (aka Ronnie Guillermo Garcia, Evil, R

13 Run), EDUARDO GOMEZ (aka Eddie Gomez

14

Eddie, Eddy, Trip, Trips), ALEX GONZALEZ ( Alex Gonzales, Alejandro Gonzalez, Lil Hitman)

15 EMMANUAL GOMEZ (aka Gustavo Gomez

16

Manny, Pelon), JOSEPH MICHAEL GONZALEZ JR. (aka Joe Michael Gonzales, Joseph Michae

17 Gonzales, Joe Gonzales, Joseph M. Gonzales, Josep

18

Gonzales, Joseph Michael Gonzalez, Josep Gonzalez, Joe Gonzalez, Shanker), JUAN LUI

19 GONZALEZ (aka Abel Pico Martinez, Lazy)

!4$0N .ROBERT .GRAY (a.~ Demon, Jay) 20 CHARLES RICHARD GREEN (aka Charles Green

21 Richard Green, Charles Richard Rojas, Richar

22

Charles Rojas, Charles Fitchorp Green, Richard C Green, Droopy, Green Eyes), JOSE DEJESU

23 GUZMAN (aka Jose DeJesus Guzman Macias, Jesu

Guzman, Jose DeJesus Macias), ANTHO 24 CHRISTOPHER HART (aka Anthony C. Hart

25 Anthony Christophe Hart, Sucio), ALBER

26

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ (aka Albert Hernandez Jr., Lil Shaggs, Lil Shaggy, Pee Wee), LO

27 ALEJANDRA HUERTA (aka Lady Wicked)

28 JAVIER GREGORY HURTADO (aka Gre ori

3

Cal se 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 41 of 55 Page ID #:44

1 Javier Hurtado, Javier Gregorio Hurtado, Jr., Li

2

Evil, Javy, Little Evil), JESSE BERNAL LARA (ak Jesse Lara, Joker), MIGUEL BERNAL LARA (ak

3 Wicked Lara, Boxer, Wicked), DANIE

4

EMANUAL LOPEZ (aka Daniel Emanuel Lopez Daniel Emanual Lopez, Daniel Emanoal Lopez

5 Daniel Lopez, Little Man, Travieso), JONAT

6

MICHAEL LOPEZ (aka Jonathan Lopez, Johnatha Michael Lopez, Charles Michael Lopez, Jontho

7 Michael Lopez, Jonathan Michael Lopez, Johnny

8

Before, Polm, Sparky), JOSE ANTONI LORENZO (aka Pooh), ANGEL LUNA (aka Ange

9 Sevilla Luna), CARLOS MARTINEZ MAGAN

10

(aka Carlos Magana Martinez, Mr. Goofy) AN'iaO:Nr PEREZ MARTINEZ (aka 'Antlion

11 Martinez, Hector Martinez, Anthony Eliff, Anthon

12

P. Martinez, Anthony Perez Martinez, Jr.),EDG EDUARDO MARTINEZ (aka Rascal), JOS

13 ANTONIO MARTINEZ (aka Tony Martinez, Tony)

JOSE CARLOS MAYORGA (aka Doeboy, Doug 14 Boy, Doughb·oy, Joe), HARVEY MEllA (ak

15 Chucky, Gardo), MELISSA NICHOLE MEJIA (

16

Melisa Nichol Mejia, Melisa Nicole Mejia, Nicol Gonzales, Melisa Saucedo, Melissa Saucedo, Bo

17 Boo), ADRIAN MENDOZA (aka Mr. Sparkey

18

Sparky), ENRIQUE CAMACHO MERAZ (ak Enrique Merez, Gangster, Gremlin, Lil OG, Li

19 Shortee, O.G. Original), MICHAEL .ALBERT

20

r,1QRALES, · t.<\IME M...IGUEL MORGUTIA, JR.
(aka Jaime Morgutia, Jaime Morgutia, Jr., Jaime M.

21 Morgutia, Jaime Miguel Morgutia), JOSE DANIE

22

MUNOZ (aka Jose Munoz, Goody, Innocent, Li Good, Lil Goody, Lil Trips), ANGELA LA

23 NAYARRO (aka Angie L. Navarro, Angeie Navarro

Angel Laura Navarro, Angie, Big Angie, Grumpy 24 La Grumpy), GILBERT NEGRETE (aka Gilbert

25 Negrete, Wolfy), JOSE ADAN NIETO (ak

26

Clumsy), OMAR PATINO (aka Lil Man), DANIE NEFTALI PEREZ (aka Daniel Nafala Perez, Danie

27 Nefaly Perez), GUSTAVO ALFONSO PEREZ (a

28 Gustavo Perez, Cartoon), DIEGO RAMIREZ (ak

( ;, ' . .,., f... . ,; . . . " '( .!

' t

•• ""'. •

J , ••• "

...

4

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 42 of 55 Page ID #:45

1 Diego Benitez Ramirez, Diego Javier Ramirez)

2

WAN SERGIO RAMIREZ (aka Juan Ramirez, Ju Carlos Ramirez, Boxer), NATHANIEL RY

3 RAMIREZ (aka Nathania! Ryan Ramirez, Nathanie

4

Ramirez, Minor), ROMIE DANIEL PEREZ (ak Oso, Slow, Slow Boy), ZACHARIAH IS

5 RAMIREZ (aka Zacharia Isiah Rameriz, Boxer)

6

ROBERT LOUIS REIL (aka Robert Luis Reil Robert Luis Riel, Robert Louis Riel, Robert Reil

7 Shanke, Luis, Downer), HOMER LUIS ROSALE

8

(aka Homer Alvarez, Luis Rosalez Alvarez, Lui Rosales Castro, Homer Alvarez Rosales, Lui

9 Rosales, Luis Homer Alvarez Rosales, Homer

10

Maze), TYRONE CHRISTOPHER RYE (aka Tro Rye, William Rye, Tyrone Christophe· Rye, Willia

11 Norman Rye, Norman Rye William, Michae

12

Mitchell Veramondi, Richard A. Portillo, Richar Aaron Portillo, Thumper), CARLOS MANUE

13 SANCHEZ (aka Carlos Perez, Carlos Sanchez Perez

14

Lost), LUIS ALBERTO SANCHEZ (aka Cheeks Kashetez, Cachetes), SHAWN SANDOVAL (ak

15 Shawny Boy), JESSE SAUCEDO (aka Big Jesse

16

Scarp), BEATRICE DESIREE SEPULVEDA ( Desiree Sepulveda, Dee Dee, Desiree), AD

17 WAYNE SNELL (aka Adam Wyane Snell, Bones

18

Casper), BRIAN JOHN SUAREZ (aka Brian Hug Suarez, Dough Boy), FERNANDO TAPIA (ak

. 19 Fernando Saul Tapia, Fernie, Panther), ISRAE TEJEDA (aka Israel Tejeda, Jr., C!~v~r, J., Snorty)

. . ..

·.• '

' ... . .. ..

,.'

I

20 CLARENCE ANTHONY TENORIO (aka Clarenc

21 Tenorio, Tony Tenorio, Clarence Valdivai, Claren

Anthony Valdivia - Tenorio, Clever, Klever) 22 RUBEN TENORIO (aka Ruben Palacios), D

23 BOY TORRES (aka Baby Boy, Danny Boy, Demon

Lil Demon, Little Demon), HERMES GERARD 24 TROCHEZ (aka Hermes Geraldo Trochez, Herm

25 Tarochez, Hermes Torchez, Hermes Tarochez

Herman Gerardo Trochez, Sleep, Psyco, Syko) 26 . MARTIN BLANCO TRUJILLO (aka Marti

27 Trujillo, Jose Soto, Bugsy, Crook, Rhino), DANIE

VAS UEZ aka Dann Vas uez , DAVID VICTO ~ 28

5

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 43 of 55 Page ID #:46

I VASQUEZ (aka Victor David Vasquez, Davi

2

Vasquez, Herbie, Sneaky), MANUEL VASQUEZ NATHANIEL VALDEZ (aka Nathaniel Valde

3 Arriano, Nathaniel Joseph Valdez, Leva, Nate, Nat

4

Dogg, Punk), SERGIO VASQUEZ (aka Sergi Gonzalez), JESUS ANTONIO VELASQUEZ (ak

5 Frog, Frogger, Froggy, Maniac, Groggy), YO

6

VELASQUEZ (aka Yony Velasquez, Clown) RAYMUNDO VELEZ (aka Raymundo Rivas Velez

7 Artie, Artik, Joker, Klone), JEFFREY SEBAST

8

VILLALBA (aka Jeffrey Villalba, Shy Boy, Sh One), ALFONSO MEJIA YEPEZ (aka Alfons

9 Majayepez, Alfonso Yepez, Alfonso Clement

I 0

Reyes, Alfonso Mejia - Yepez, Alfonzo Yepe Mejia), A"L2XIS FERNANTIO .l.A.M:ORA (aka Ale

11 Zamora, Rocky, Rookie, 4), EDGAR MIGUE

12

ZAMORA (aka Edgar Zamora, Edgar M. Zamora Chief, Dopey, Doppy), and DOES 1 - I50, inclusive,

13

14

Defendants.

I5

16

17

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ORANGE

18 VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG (an unincorporated association), and the

19 ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG'S members, participants, agents,

.~ . '

.

20 associates, servants, employees, aiders, and abettors whose membership, participation, agency,

21 association, service, employment, aid, or abetment is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or

22 purely technical, and all persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction

23 of, or in association with ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG in a

24 manner that is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical, and Miguel Alvidrez

25 (aka Miguel Aolvidrez, Sleeper, Sleepy), Raymond Martin Atencio (aka Ray Atencio, Raymond

26 Martin Attencio, Reymond Martin Atencio, Rey Atencio, Reymond Martin Atencio, IV,

27 Raymond Martin Atencio, IV, Raymond Atencio, Ray Ray, Rey Rey, Demon), Jose Ayala (aka

28 Jose Ayala, Jr., Shadow), Joseph Anthony Baez (aka Joseph Anthony Bael, Spooky, Spooks,

6 fPn·n,Bssa:L.Order for Permanent Iniunction

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 44 of 55 Page ID #:47

1 Spookster), Gabriel Bastida (aka Gabriel Nasario Bastida), Joshua Allan Branch (aka Josh Allen

2 Branch, Joshua Branch, Joshua A. Branch, Joshua Allen Branch, Cricket), Lauro Campos (aka

3 Laura Campos, Lauro Cumpos, Lauro Campos-Rosas, Goofy, Midnight), Jesus Cornea Cano

4 (aka Jesus Cano Correa, Jesus Cantu Correa, Chewee, Chewy, Chuy), Rene Raymond Chavez

5 (aka Indio), Martin Salvador Cornejo (aka Lil Martin, Rabbit), Ruben Candillaria Cruz (aka

6 Reuben Cruz, Ruben Cruz, Ruben Candellarria Cruz, Pirate), Javier Esparza (aka John David

7 Esparz, Gizmo), Ronnie Andrew Garcia (aka Ronnie Guillermo Garcia, Evil, Run Run), Andrew

8 Paul Garcia (aka Andrew Garcia, Youngster, Wacko), Richard Anthony Garcia (aka Richard

9 Garcia, Shorty, Little Richard, Rich, Valarta), Alex Gonzalez (aka Alex Gonzales, Alejandro

:-10

GQnzalez,

..

.

Lil

Hitman), .

Juan

Luis

Gonzalez

(aka

AbeJ

Pico

Ma. rt.i.n· e,z. ,

La~'),

.Ja.'>0'1

Robert

Gray

11 (aka Demon, Jay), Charles Richard Green (aka Charles Green, Richard Green, Charles Richard

12 Rojas, Richard Charles Rojas, Charles Fitchorp.Green, Richard C. Green, Droopy, Green Eyes),

13 Jose DeJesus Guzman (aka Jose DeJesus Guz~an Macias, Jesus Guzman, Jose DeJesus

14 Macias), Javier Gregory Hurtado (aka Gregorio Javier Hurtado, Javier Gregorio Hurtado,

15 Jr., Lil Evil, Javy, Little Evil), Jesse Bernal Lara (aka Wicked Lara, Joker), Jonathan Michael

16 Lopez (aka Jonathan Lopez, Johnathan Michael Lopez, Charles Michael Lopez, Jonthon

17 Michael Lopez, Jonathan Michael Lopez, Johnny, Before, Polm, Sparky), Jose Carlos Mayorga

18 (aka Doeboy, Dough Boy, Doughboy, Joe), Harvey Mejia (aka Chucky, Gardo), Adrian

19 Mendoza (aka Mr. Sparkey, Sparky), Enrique Camacho Meraz (aka Enrique Merez, Gangster, 20 . Gremlin, Lil OG, Lil ~hortec, G.G. Original), Jaime MigUel Morgutia, Jr. (aka Jaime Morgutia,

21 Jaime Morgutia, Jr., Jaime M. Morgutia, Jaime Miguel Morgutia), Omar Patino (aka Lil Man),

22 Juan Sergio Ramirez (aka Juan Ramirez, Juan. Carlos Ramirez, Boxer), Zachariah Isaiah

23 Ramirez (aka Zacharia Isiah Rameriz, Boxer), Diego Ramirez (aka Diego Benitez Ramirez,

24 Diego Javier Ramirez), Nathaniel Ryan Ramirez (aka Nathania! Ryan Ramirez, Nathaniel

25 Ramirez, Minor), Robert Louis Reil (aka Robert Luis Reil, Robert Luis Riel, Robert Louis Riel,

26 Robert Reil, Shanke, Luis, Downer), Tyrone Christopher Rye (aka Troy Rye, William Rye,

27 Tyrone Christophe Rye, William Norman Rye, Norman Rye William, Michael Mitchell

28 Veramondi, Richard A. Portillo, Richard Aaron Portillo, Thumper), Carlos Manuel Sanchez (aka

7

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 45 of 55 Page ID #:48

1 Carlos Perez, Carlos Sanchez Perez, Lost), Shawn Sandoval (aka Shawny Boy), Clarence

2 Anthony Tenorio (aka Clarence Tenorio, Tony Tenorio, Clarence Valdivai, Clarence Anthony

3 Valdivia - Tenorio, Clever, Klever), Yoni Velasquez (aka Yony Velasquez, Clown), Alexis

4 Fernando Zamora (aka Alex Zamora, Rocky, Rookie, 4), Edgar Miguel Zamora (aka Edgar

5 Zamora, Edgar M. Zamora, Chief, Dopey, Doppy), Danny Boy Torres (aka Baby Boy, Danny

6 Boy, Demon, Lil Demon, Little Demon), Martin Blanco Trujillo (aka Martin Trujillo, Jose

7 Soto, Bugsy, Crook, Rhino) are enjoined from engaging in or performing directly or indirectly,

8 any of the following activities in the Safety Zone:

9

The Safety Zone is defined as follows:

10

11 I. DOWNTOWN TERRITORY

12 The north curb-line of Collins Avenue; to the west curb-line ofGlassell Street; to the north curb-

13 line of Jacaranda Avenue; to the east curb-line of Grand Street: to the north curb-line of Collins

14 Avenue; to the west curb-line of Cambridge Street; to the north curb-line of Adams Avenue; to

15 the east curb-line of California Street; to the north curb-line of Collins Avenue; to the east curb-

16 line of Cambridge Street; to the south curb-line of La Veta Avenue; to the east curb-line of

17 Shaffer Street, continuing along the wrought iron fence-line that bo~ders the eastern perimeter

18 of Hart Park; to the cinder-block wall that surrounds Hart Park; to the west curb-line ofGlassell;

19 to the south curb-line of La Veta; to the west curb-line of Crest Street; to the west curb-line of

. 2.0 Feldner Street; to the south curb-line of Chapman Avenue; to the west cuib-line of Eckhoff

21 Street; to the south fence-line located to the rear of the businesses at 2100-2200 W.

22 Orangewood; to the east curb-line of the Orangewood off-ramp of the northbound 57 freeway;

23 to the north curb-line of Orangewood Avenue; to the west curb-line of Main Street; to the north

24 curb-line of Collins Avenue.

25 II. IDGHLAND TERRITORY:

26 . (Area 1) The north curb-line of Lincoln Avenue to the north, the south curb-line of Meats

27 Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, and

28 the west curb-line of Canal Street to the west; (Area 2) The north curb-line of Meats Avenue to

8
IPrc=n=tm;erll Orner for Pernument Tninnr.tion

CaI se 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 46 of 55 Page ID #:49

I the north, the fence-line located behind the businesses at 1592 North Tustin Street to the south,

2 the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the cinderblock wall

3 located behind the businesses on Tustin Street to the west; (Area 3) The fence-line located 4 behind the businesses at 1592 North Tustin Street to the north, the south curb-line of Katella 5 Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the 6 fence-line located behind the businesses at 1400-1518 and 1582 North Tustin Street to the west;

7 (Area 4) The cinder block wall located behind the businesses on the north-west comer of Tustin

8 Street and Katella Avenue to the north and west, the north curb-line of Katella Avenue to the 9 south, the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east; (Area 5) The north 10 curb-line of the KateJla Avenue to the no:rth, the south curb-line of Collins Avenue to the south, 11 the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the east curb-line of

12 California Street to the west; (Area 6) The north curb-line of Collins Avenue to the north, the 13 south curb-line of Mayfair Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier wall of the southbound

14 55 Freeway to the east, the east curb-line of Shattuck Street to the west; (Area 7) The north

15 curb-line of Mayfair Avenue to the north, the north curb-line of Walnut Avenue to the south, the

16 west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the cinder block wall located

17 behind the businesses on Tustin Street to the west; (Area 8) The north curb-line of Walnut 18 Avenue to the north, the south curb-line of Palm Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier 19 wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the east curb-line of Shattuck Street to the west; 20 (Area·· 9) The north curb-line of Palm Avenue to the.' north,· the ·north curb-line· of Chapman 21 Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the

22 cinder block wall locate behind the businesses on Tustin Street to the west; (Area 10) The north

23 curb-line of Chapman Avenue to the north, the south curb-line of Palmyra Avenue to the south; · 24 the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the east curb-line of

25 Lincoln Street to the west.

26

III. HOOVER-WILSON TERRITORY:

27 The north curb-line ofKatella Avenue to the north; the south curb-line of Collins Avenue to the

28 south; the east curb-line ofGlassell Street to the east; and the OCTA Metro-Link railroad tracks

... , ,.....,. .,

9
r __ n _____ ______ .... Y--~---- _...__.: __

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 47 of 55 Page ID #:50

1 to the west. (A map of the Safety Zone is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

2

a. Do Not Associate: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public,

3 or in public view, do not stand, sit, walk, drive, bicycle, gather or appear with (1) any person

4 named herein, (2) anyone you know to be a member, participant, agent, associate, servant,

5 employee, aider, or abettor of the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang, or (3) anyone you

6 know to be acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association

7 with the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang. (People ex rei. Gallo v. Acuna, supra, 14

8 Cal.4th at 1110, 1117-1118, 1121-1122 [discussion of provision (a)], 1123-1125; In re

9 Englebrecht, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 488-489, 490 fn. 3 [quoting par (a)]; People v. .

. 10 Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243 and 1261; People ex. rei. Totten v. Co1t:>r:;,. .C.~!ques

11 (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 31, 37.)

12

b. Do Not Intimidate: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public,

13 or in public view, do not (1) confront, intimidate, annoy, harass, threaten, challenge, provoke,

14 assault, or batter anyone in the Safety Zone, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone

15 you know is confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking,

16 assaulting, or battering anyone in the Safety Zone. (People ex rei. Gallo v. Acuna, supra, 14

17 Cal.4th at 1118-1122; In re Englebrecht, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 490 fn. 3, 493, [par (k)]);

18 People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

19

c. Stay Away From Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia: Anywhere in any public place,

:lO any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) unlawfully use, possess,

21 transport, furnish, manufacture, deliver, dispense, distribute, or sell any drug or drug

22 paraphernalia, (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully using,

23 possessing, transporting, furnishing, manufacturing, delivering, dispensing, distributing, or

24 selling any drug or drug paraphernalia, (3) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know

25 is unlawfully under the influence of any drug, (4) knowingly remain in the presence of any

26 illegal drug or drug paraphernalia, or (5) unlawfully be under the influence of any drug. (Bus. &

27 Prof. Code §§ 4060, 4140-4141; Health & Saf. Code§§ 11014, 11014.5, 11018-11021, 11053-

28

10
r n_______:n C - - n ~-..l-- _ _ _ _ _ _ ... T-~----....:--

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 48 of 55 Page ID #:51

1 11058, 11364, and 11550; Pen. Code § 31; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at

2 1243, fn. 2, [par (I)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

3

d. Stay Away From Guns, Explosive Devices and Weapons: Anywhere in any public

4 place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) use, possess, transport,

5 furnish, manufacture, deliver, dispense, distribute, or sell any firearm, gun, replica firearm,

6 ammunition, BB gun, pellet gun, explosive device, destructive device, or weapon such as

7 knives, dirks, daggers, clubs, metal knuckles, hard plastic knuckles, nunchakus, chains,

8 slingshots, or any weapon listed in Penal Code § 12020, (2) remain in the presence of or assist

9 anyone you know is using, possessing, transporting, furnishing, manufacturing, delivering,

10 dispensing, distributing, or selling any fireann; gun, replica firearm, an:ununition, BB gun, pellet

11 gun, explosive device, destructive device, or weapon such as knives, dirks, daggers, clubs, metal

12 knuckles, hard plastic knuckles, nunchakus, chains, slingshots, or any weapon listed in Penal

13 Code § 12020, or (3) knowingly remain in the presence of any frrearm, gun, replica firearm,

14 ammunition, BB gun, pellet gun, explosive device, destructive device, or weapon such as

15 knives, dirks, daggers, clubs, metal knuckles, hard plastic knuckles, nunchakus, chains,

16 slingshots, or any weapon listed in Penal Code§ 12020. (Health & Saf. Code§§ 12000, 12120,

17 12303, and 12305; Pen. Code§§ 31, 12001, 12020, 12020.1, 12301, 12550; OMC §§ 9.32.010,

18 9.32.020; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243, fn. 2, [par (c), (j)]); People ex.

19 rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

20

e. Do Net Fight: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the pubiic, or in

21 public view, do not (I} unlawfully fight or challenge another person to fight, (2) remain in the

22 presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully fighting or challenging another person to

23 fight, (3) maliciously and willfully disturb another person by loud or unreasonable noise, (4)

24 remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is maliciously and Willfully disturbing

25 another person by loud or unreasonable noise, (5) use offensive words which are inherently

26 likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction, or (6) remain in the presence of or assist anyone

27 you know is using offensive words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent

28

11

r"'

__ _,, r"\. __ _] __ .1:'.:...._ n ______.._ T-.: .., __,.,: __

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 49 of 55 Page ID #:52

I reaction. (Pen. Code§§ 3I and 4I5; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at I243, fn.

2 2, [par (d)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, I 56 Cal.App.4th, 3I, 37.)

3

f. Do Not Trespass: Do not (I) be present on, remain on, or pass through any property

4 not open to the public unless you have the voluntary consent of the owner, owner's agent, or the

5 person in lawful possession of the property, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you

6 know is present on any property not open to the public without the voluntary consent of the

7 owner, owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (People v.

8 Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at I243, fn. 2, [par (g)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia

9 Chiques, supra, I56 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

IO

g. Do Not Block Free Passage: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to

II the public, or in public view, do not (I) willfully and maliciously block the free passage of any

I2 person or vehicle on any street, walkway, sidewalk, driveway, alleyway, or other area of public

13 passage, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is willfully and maliciously

I4 blocking the free passage of any person or vehicle on any street, walkway, sidewalk, driveway,

I5 alleyway, or other area of public passage. (Pen. Code§§ 3I and 647c; OMC § 12.64.020; In re
I6 Englebrecht, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 490 fn. 3, 493 [par (h)].)

17

h. Do Not Engage In Graffiti and/or Vandalism And Stay Away From

18 Graffiti/Vandalism Tools: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or

I9 in public view, do not (1) maliciously spray paint, mark with marker pens, or otherwise deface

·20 property with graffiti or other inscribed material oil any ·public prop~ br privale property not

2I your own, (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is maliciously spray painting,

22 marking with marker pens, or otherwise defacing property with graffiti or other inscribed

23 material on any public or private property not belonging to him, her or you, (3) maliciously

24 damage or destroy real or personal property not your own, (4) remain in the presence of or.assist

25 anyone y~u know is maliciously damaging or destroying real or personal property not belonging

26 to him, her or you, (5) unlawfully possess spray paint cans, marker pens, knives, screwdrivers·,

27 razor blades, nails, or other objects capable of destroying, damaging, or defacing property, or (6)

28 remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully possessing spray paint cans,

I2

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 50 of 55 Page ID #:53

1 marker pens, knives, screwdrivers, razor blades, nails, or other objects capable of destroying,

2 damaging, or defacing property. (Pen. Code§§ 31, 594, and 594.2; OMC §§ 8.37.030, 8.37.040

3 8.37.045; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243, fn. 2, [par (e), (f)]); People ex.

4 rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

5

i. Do Not Use Gang Hand Signs or Symbols: Anywhere in any public place, any place

6 accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) use, display, or communicate by means of

7 any words, phrases, physical gestures, hand signs, or symbols that you know describe, represent,

8 or refer to the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang, or (2) remain in the presence of or

9 assist anyone you know is using, displaying, or communicating by means of any words, phrases,

10 _I?~ysical gestures, hand signs or symbols that you know describe, repr.~sent; or refer to the .

II Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang. (People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at

12 1243 fn. 2, 1266-1267 [par (s)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 13 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

14

j. Do Not Wear Gang Clothing: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to

15 the public, or in public view, do not (1) wear; display, exhibit, or possess any clothes or

16 accessories that you know advertise, advance, promote, represent, or refer to the Orange Varrio

17 Cypress criminal street gang, including clothes or accessories that display, exhibit, or feature, in

18 any variation or combination, the image, name, words, or letters, "Orange Varrio Cypress,"

19 "Orange Varrio Cypress Street," "Cypress Street," "Cypress Street Killers," "Varrio Orange," I
20 "Varrio Cypress," "Orange Gang," "Old Towne Gang," "Old Towne Orange Gang," "Old

21 Towne Orange," "Orange," "Cypress," "OVC," "OVECE," "Killer Park Gang," "Los Royal

22 Dukes'" "Dukes' " "Royal Dukes'" "Los Dukes'" "Creepers' " "Los Creepers'" "13'" "X3'" 23 "XIII," or clothes or accessories that display, exhibit, or feature the color orange, or (2) remain

24 in the presence of or assist anyone that you know is wearing, displaying, exhibiting, or

25 possessing any clothes or accessories that you know advertise, advance, promote, represent, or

26 refer to the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang. (People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88

27 Cal.App.4th at 1243 fn. 2, 1266-1267 [par (t)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques,

28 supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

13

--+.:-- ___ . _ rn----..,~Al A-...:1-.- +'-- n~_.._,..

T-.: ....

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 51 of 55 Page ID #:54

I

k. Stay Away From Burglary Tools: Anywhere in any public place, any place

2 accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (I) unlawfully use, possess, transport, furnish,

3 manufacture, deliver, dispense, distribute, or sell any screwdrivers, porcelain spark plug chips,

4 shaved keys, picklocks, wire cutters, dent pullers, slingshots, steel shots, spark plugs, "slim

5 jims," ''bump key," or any instrument or tool listed in Penal Code § 466, or (2) remain in the

6 presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully using, possessing, transporting, furnishing,

7 manufacturing, delivering, dispensing, distributing, or selling any screwdrivers, porcelain spark

8 plug chips, shaved keys, picklocks, wire cutters, dent pullers, slingshots, steel shots, spark plugs,

9 "slim jims," "bump key," or any instrument or tool listed in Penal Code § 466. (Pen. Code §

10 466; In re Englebrecht, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 490 -lb. 3, [par (o)]; Peopl~ l'. Englebrecht,

11 supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243 fn. 2 [par (n)].)

12

I. Obey Curfew if You Are a Minor: If you are under eighteen (18) years of age,

I3 anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not

14 remain in or upon any public place, vacant lot, or business establishment between the hours of

15 10:00 p.m. on any day and 5:00a.m. of the following day, unless: (1) you are accompanied by

16 your parent(s), legal guardian, or by a responsible adult, (2) you are on an errand without any

17 detour or stop at the direction of your parent(s), legal guardian or responsible adult, (3) you are

18 on a public or private sidewalk in front of your own dwelling or a dwelling directly adjacent to

19 your dwelling, (4) you are acting within the course and scope of your lawful employment or 20 · busmess or when you ar~ going to or frorri such place of lawful employment or business by a '

21 reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, or when you are going to or from

22 a bona fide interview for lawful employment by a reasonably direct route, without detour, from

23 or to your home, (5) you are going to or from, are attending, or are engaged in, an official

24 school, official religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of your rights under the

25 First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which activity is supervised or

. 26 overseen by an adult person on behalf of any public· entity, civic organization; non-profit

27 organization, educational organization, governmental organization, or similar organization,

28 where you are going to or from such activity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from

14

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 52 of 55 Page ID #:55

1 or to your home, (6) you are going to or from a place of lawful entertainment, recreation,

2 culture, or charity that is open to the public, such as a restaurant, theater, museum, church, sports

3 arena, homeless shelter, food bank, library, public park during operating hours, gymnasium,

4 bookstore, coffee shop, or hospital, for an activity that is supervised or overseen by an adult

5 person on behalf of any public entity, civic organization, non-profit organization, educational

6 organization, governmental organization, or similar organization, where you are going to or

7 from such activity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (7) you are

8 a registered volunteer at any shelter, hospital, school or other charitable institution and you are

9 going to or from your volunteer work in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to

I0 your home, (8) you are responding to au emergency situation, or (9) you are in a vehicle

II engaged in interstate travel. (OMC § 9.28.0IO; In re Englebrecht, supra, 67 Cal.App.3rd at 490

12 fn. 3, [par (x)]; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at I243 fn. 2, [par (v)]; In re

13 Nancy C. (1972) 28 Cal.3rd 747; Alves v. Superior Court (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d. 419.)

14

m. Obey Curfew if You Are an Adult: If you are eighteen (18) years of age or older,

15 anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not

16 remain in or upon any public place, vacant lot, or business establishment between the hours of

17 IO:OO p.m. on any day and 5:00a.m. of the following day, unless: (I) you are on a public or

18 private sidewalk in front of your own dwelling or a dwelling directly adjacent to your dwelling,

19 (2) you are acting within the course and scope of your lawful employment or business, or when

· .. 20 you ate going to or from such place of lawful employinent or business by a reasonabiy direct

21 . route, without detour, from or to your home or when you are going to or from your home for a

22 bona fide interview for lawful employment by a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or

23 to your home, (3) you are going to or from, are attending, or are engaged in, an official school,

24 official religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of your rights under the First

25 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, where you are going to or from such

26 ~ctivity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (4) you·are going to ·

27 or from a place of lawful entertainment, recreation, culture, or charity that is open to the public,

28 such as a restaurant, theater, museum, church, sports arena, homeless shelter, food bank, library,

I5

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 53 of 55 Page ID #:56

1 public park during operating hours, gymnasium, coffee shop, or hospital, where you are going to

2 or from such place in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (5) you

3 are a registered volunteer at any shelter, hospital, school or other charitable institution and you

4 are going to or from your volunteer work in a reasonably direct route~ without detour, from or to

5 your home, (6) you are responding to .an emergency situation, or (7) you are in a vehicle

6 engaged in interstate travel. (OMC § 9.28.010; In re Englebrecht, supra, 61 Cal.App.3rd at 490

7 fn. 3, [par (x)]; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243 fn. 2, [par (v)]; In re

8 Nancy C. (1972) 28 Cal.3rd 747; Alves v. Superior Court (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d. 419.)

9

n. Stay Away From Alcohol: Anywhere in any public place, or any place accessible to

10 .the public, do not (1) drink alcoholic beverages, (2) possess an open containf'r 0f ~n akohoiic
I
11 beverage, (3) unlawfully be under the influence of alcohol, (4) knowingly remain in the presence

12 of anyone possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage, or (5) knowingly remain in the

13 presence of an open container of an alcoholic beverage. (Pen. Code § 647(f); Veh. Code §§

14 21221.5, 23140, 23152(a); OMC §9.16.020; People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra,

15 156 Cal.App.4th p. 38-39); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31,

16 37.)

17

o. Do Not Act as a Lookout: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the

18 public, or in public view, do not keep watch, yell, whistle, signal, gesture, or otherwise act as a

19 lookout to warn another person of the approach or presence of a law enforcement officer.
I
20 ·(People v. Engelbrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1243, fn. 2, [par (q)]; In re Engelbrecht,

21 supra, 67 Cal.App.4th 486, 490, fn. 3, [par (r)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques,

22 supra, 156 Cal.App.4th, 31, 37.)

23

p. Obey All Laws: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or

24 in public view, obey all laws and court orders.

25
26 DATED: YIL{~j
27 28

~· ·~n.MAazKuhJaruNMOa.kino
Judge ofthe Superior Court

16

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 54 of 55 Page ID #:57

1

•.

•

•· . •

., .

•

Exhibit A

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 1-3 Filed 09/23/09 Page 55 of 55 Page ID #:58

::~-.~:,""' -----
......... ...~'·"""'''"'"
o,_,r,.:>a·,
----------- ··--·-··--

OVC TaJ--get Areas

 
 Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 135 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:3509

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. SACV 09-1090-VBF(RNBx)

Dated: April 19, 2010

Title: Manuel Vasquez, et al. -v- Tony Rackaukas, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rita Sanchez Courtroom Deputy

Rosalyn Adams Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

Belinda E. Helzer Jacob S. Kreilkamp

S. Frank Harrell Wayne W. Winthers Norman J. Watkins Melissa D. Culp

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. #123)

Case called, and counsel make their appearance.
The Court on April 19, 2010 heard oral argument by the Parties relating to the Motion For Class Certification of Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, Gabriel Bastida, and Randy Bastida (“Plaintiffs”)(dkt. #123). The Court referred to its Tentative Ruling dated April 8, 2010 (dkt. #133) and took the matter under submission.
After further consideration of the papers filed and counsels’ oral arguments, the Court adopts its Tentative Ruling and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification, with modifications of the class definitions as proposed at the hearing and as further described below.
The Court hereby certifies a class with Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, and Gabriel Bastida as named representatives, defined as follows:
All persons named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange

Initials of Deputy Clerk rs

-1-

1:00 min

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 135 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:3510
County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009, who appeared in the Orange County Superior Court to defend themselves and were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney's office, and who did not have contempt proceedings pending against them arising out of the Order for Permanent Injunction against “Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang” dated May 14, 2009, as of the date of the filing of this litigation - September 23, 2009.
The Court hereby certifies an additional class with Plaintiff Randy Bastida as the named representative, defined as follows:
All juveniles named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009, for whom no guardian ad litem was appointed, who were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney's office, and who did not have contempt proceedings pending against them arising out of the Order for Permanent Injunction against “Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang” dated May 14, 2009, as of the date of the filing of this litigation - September 23, 2009.
Each class is certified for purposes of the claims described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint (dkt. #1), namely the causes of action entitled: (1) “42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Procedural Due Process Under U.S. Const. Amend XIV”; and (2) “Procedural Due Process Under Cal. Const. art. I, § 7."
The Court hereby appoints as class counsel for each class the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, through its attorneys Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Hector O. Villagra, and Peter Bibring.

Initials of Deputy Clerk rs

-2-

1:00 min

 
 Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:2286

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. SACV 09-1090-VBF(RNBx)

Dated: November 16,2009

Title:

Manuel Vasquez, et al. -v- Tony Rackaukas, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, U.s. DISTRICT JUDGE

Rita Sanchez Courtroom Deputy

None Present Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (dkt. 51); STATEMENT OF DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(a)(2»

After considering the papers filed and counsel's oral arguments at the hearings on November 5 and 6, 2009, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the ground that the equitable relief sought is not appropriate. The Proposed

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk JL -1-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:2287

Preliminary InjunctionI does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(I)(B) and (C). The terms of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction are not sufficiently specific; they are unclear particularly as to the "judicial hearing" requirement. Additionally, and especially in light ofthe foregoing, the relief requested in the Proposed Preliminary Injunction is not useful or workable and would be an affront, at this time, to comity and an impairment of the sovereign powers or dignity of the State of California. See Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995); Gottfriedv. Medical Planning Servs., Inc., 142 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 1998).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND BACKGROUND
The Parties to this Action
1. The Plaintiff-Petitioners ("Plaintiffs") Michael Vasquez, Miguel Lara, Gabriel Bastida and James Doe bring this action individually and on behalf of a class defined as:
All persons named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et aI., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17,2009, who appeared or attempted to appear, either pro per or through an attorney, in the Orange County Superior Court to defend themselves and were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney's office and have now been served or will be served with the Order for Permanent Injunction against "Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang" dated May 14,2009, and therefore subject to its provisions, but do not have contempt proceedings currently pending against them. Compi. ~ 84 (dkt. #1).
2. Additionally, Plaintiff James Doe brings this action individually and on behalf of the following sub-class:
All juveniles named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et aI., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17,2009, who attempted to appear in the Orange County Superior Court, either individually or through a parent, but could not have a guardian ad litem appointed because neither the juveniles nor their parents could afford an attorney and

IThe Plaintiffs' Proposed Preliminary Injunction was submitted at the hearing on November 6,2009, and is hereby attached.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ~ -2-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:2288
therefore could not and did not formally appear; were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney's office and have now been served or will be served with the Order for Permanent Injunction against "Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang" dated May 14,2009, and therefore subject to its provisions, but do not have contempt proceedings currently pending against them. Compl. ~ 85.
3. The Defendants are Tony Rackaukas, the Orange County District Attorney ("OCDA") and Robert Gustafson, Chief of the Orange Police Department ("OPD"). The Defendants are sued only in their official capacities. CompI. ~ 1.
The Complaint in this Federal Action
4. On September 23,2009, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against the Defendants. The Complaint has two causes of action for procedural due process violations: the first is a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the second is a claim under the California Constitution, Art. I, section 7. CompI. ~~ 97-103.
5. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants and their directors, officers, agents and employees from enforcing the terms of the permanent injunction order against them issued in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et a!., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739 and those similarly situated "without first providing them with a full constitutionally-adequate hearing." CompI. Prayer for Relief.
6. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' tactics in subjecting them to a gang injunction, obtained via default against the gang to which they allegedly belong, after dismissing the Plaintiffs from that suit. CompI. ~ 4
7. On September 29,2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, but set an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction hearing for November 5, 2009 (dkt. #45).
The State Court Action

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ~ -3-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:2289

8. On February 1,2009, the OCDA, on behalf of The People of the State of California, filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange ("OCSC"), a Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction to Abate a Public Nuisance. People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et aI., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009-00118739. See Decl. of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in Supp. of Pis.' Ex Parte App. for TRO & OSC re Prelim. Inj., dated Sept. 23,2009 ("Helzer Decl.") Ex. B (dkt. #14).
9. The OCDA sued not only the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang ("OVC") but also 115 individuals and 150 Does alleged to be active members or associates. See Helzer Decl. Ex. B.
10. On February 23, 2009, the OCDA filed an ex parte application to serve OVC under California Civil Procedure Code § 416.40(c). The OCDA requested and obtained permission to serve the gang via a named defendant, Patrick DeHerrera, whom the OCDA alleged was an OVC member. See Helzer Decl. Ex. M.
11. On or about February 24 & 25, 2009, OPD officers served the summons, complaint, and supporting papers totaling at least 500 pages on numerous individuals named in the state court complaint, including Plaintiffs. See Decl. of Manuel Vasquez in Supp. of PIs. , Ex Parte App. for TRO & OSC re Prelim. Inj., dated Sept. 22, 2009 ("Vasquez Decl.") ~~ 8-9 (dkt. #13); Decl. of Miguel Lara in Supp. of PIs.' Ex Parte App. for TRO & OSC re Prelim. Inj., dated Sept. 22, 2009 ("Lara Decl.") ~ 8 (dkt. #78); Decl. of Gabriel Bastida in Supp. of Pis.' Ex Parte App. for TRO & OSC re Prelim. Inj., dated Sept. 22, 2009 ("Bastida Decl.") ~ 8 (dkt. #15); Decl. of Jane Doe in SUpp. of Pis.' Ex Parte App. for TRO & OSC re Prelim. Inj., dated Sept. 22, 2009 ("Jane Doe Decl.") ~ 4 (dkt. #8).
12. Ultimately, 34 defendants (all adults) - including Plaintiffs Lara and Vasquez - filed an answer or a general denial in response to the complaint. See Helzer Decl. ~~ 21, 23 & Ex. E at 50-51,61,64,66,68,70,78-79,81-85,88; see also Lara Decl. Ex. F; Vasquez Decl. Ex. B.
13. On May 12,2009, the OCDA filed a request for dismissal against 62 individuals. See Helzer Decl. ~ 49 & Ex. K. This group included the 34 adults who responded to the complaint either by filing a general denial and/or an answer and approximately 26 unrepresented juveniles. Jd. The dismissal was entered on May 12, 2009.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk -...IL -4-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:2290

14. On May 14,2009, the OCSC granted the OCDA's request for default and judgment, signing the Order for Permanent Injunction against OVC and individuals who had not filed a response to the complaint and had default entered against them. See Helzer Decl. ~ 62; Vasquez Decl. Ex. F.

15. The Order for Permanent Injunction applied to the OVC and to all members of the gang, whether or not named in the original lawsuit and to all "participants, agents, associates, servants, employees, aiders, and abettors whose membership, participation, agency, association, service, employment, aid or abetment is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical and all persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the OVC criminal street gang in any manner that is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical." See Compl. Ex. A at 6:17-24 (dkt. #1). The terms of the Order for Permanent Injunction applied to a limited gang operation area in the City of Orange, which the state court termed the "Safety Zone." Id. at 8:9.

16. In early June, the OCDA, by and through the OPD, began to serve the Order for Permanent Injunction. As of late September 2009, 94 individuals were served with the Order for Permanent Injunction. See Decl. ofDet. Joel Nigro in SUpp. of Defendant Gustafson's Opp. to PIs.' Ex Parte App. for TRO, dated Sept. 28, 2009 at ~ 14 (dkt. #21-3). These individuals include at least 22 individuals, including Plaintiffs, who had been named in the litigation against OVC and its members but were voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA. See Helzer Decl. ~ 64; Lara Decl. ~ 32; Bastida Decl. ~ 29; Vasq\.Jez Decl. ~ 22; Jane Doe Decl. ~ 19.

17. Along with the Order for Permanent Injunction, the OCDA and OPD served a notice stating:
YOU ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT ON MAY 14,2009, JUDGE KAZUHARU MAKINO SIGNED AN ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG, WHETHER OR NOT NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT OR NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT AND LATER

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ---.rL -5-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:2291
DISMISSED FROM THE LAWSUIT .... ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.
ALL PERSONS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 166(a)(4) FOR ANY WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION LISTED IN THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.
See, e.g., Vasquez Decl. ,-r 24 & Ex. F at 1 (emphasis in original).
18. On July 10,2009, the OCSC granted Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida's request to vacate the default entered against him and to be permitted to contest the allegations against him. See Bastida Decl.,-r 23 & Ex. F at 25. In late April 2009, the OCDA had sought and obtained entry of default against Mr. Bastida. Id. ,-r 18. In mid-May 2009, Mr. Bastida had filed a request to vacate the default and a general denial, requesting that he be allowed to present a defense at trial and contest the allegations against him. Id. ,-r,-r 19, 21, 22 & Ex. E; see also CompI. ,-r,-r 70-72.
19. On July 16,2009, the OCDA dismissed the case against Gabriel Bastida. See Bastida Decl. ,-r 26 & Ex. H; see also CompI. ,-r 72.
20. On August 13,2009, Defendant OPD served Gabriel Bastida with the gang injunction. See Bastida Decl. ,-r 29 & Ex. I; see also CompI. ,-r 72.
Contempt Proceedings Are Not Pending Against Plaintiffs
21. There are no contempt proceedings currently pending against any Plaintiff. See CompI. ,-r,-r 84-85.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There is federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim, and supplemental jurisdiction over their state constitutional claim.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ----.IL -6-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:2292

2. The Plaintiffs are not required to exhaust state law remedies for the Court to have jurisdiction to review their Section 1983 claim. See Patsy v. Bd. ofRegents, 457 U.S. 496, 507 (1982).
3. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply in this case. The doctrine is confined to "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The Plaintiffs did not lose in state court, but rather were dismissed by the Defendants and no adverse judgment was entered against them. Additionally, the Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to review and reject the state court judgment; they ask the Court to prevent its enforcement. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 2004).
4. The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, does not apply in this case because Section 1983 claims are authorized exceptions to this Act. See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972).
5. The abstention doctrine established by Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) does not apply in this case because there is no ongoing state proceeding that is parallel to this federal case.
6. Although a closer question, the Court also finds that the Younger abstention doctrine does not bar this action. Two of the four requirements for the doctrine appear to be present, i.e. the proceeding implicates important state interests and the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding. The additional requirements for Younger abstention, however, are not met. There is no on-going state-initiated proceeding and the federal court action in this court would not enjoin the state court proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so. In other words, this federal action would not interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves. Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,41 (1971)).
a. Because the Plaintiffs are not parties to the state court's injunction, it is not the equivalent of a pending state court action for purposes of Younger. See Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., Inc., 142 F.3d 326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998).

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ----XL -7-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:2293

(1) The Court makes this finding while recognizing that the state court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the permanent injunction. Saga Int 'I, Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1283, 1285 n.l (C.D. Cal. 1997) (citing ReebokInt'l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1995)). Moreover, the state court may modify or dissolve an injunction pursuant to statutory authority and/or its inherent power. See, e.g., Green Trees Enters. v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, 66 Cal. 2d 782, 788 (1967). The federal plaintiffs could also request general declaratory relief from the injunction in state court. See, e.g., Gottfried, 142 F.3d at 332; Cal. Code ofCiv. Proc. § 1060. These facts do not change the finding that there is no on-going state court proceeding. Green, 255 F.3d at 1094-96.
(2) It also appears that the Plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceeding. See, e.g., People ex reI. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th 31 (Ct. App. 2007). The Younger doctrine, however, does not apply to the Plaintiffs, who were nonparties to the state court litigation at issue, simply because they could have intervened in the state court litigation. Green, 255 F.3d at 1102-03 ("[A]bsent a relationship with a party to a state proceeding ... a federal plaintiff has no obligation to intervene in state court litigation raising issues similar to those that the plaintiff wishes to raise in federal court.").
(a) As stated above, intervention may be required where there is "a relationship with a party to a state proceeding." Id. The Court finds, however, that such relationship has not been shown in this case and that the Plaintiffs are not obliged to intervene. As the Ninth Circuit explained, "[c]ongruence of interests is not enough, nor is identity of counsel, but a party whose interest is so intertwined with those of the state court party that direct interference with the state court proceeding is inevitable may, under Younger, not proceed." Id. at 1100.
(b) The cases discussed in Green are instructive and support this Court's determination. The following cases, where the Younger doctrine was applied, are distinguishable: Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975); Delta Dental Plan ofCal. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1998); Casa Marie v. Superior Court offuerto Rico, 988 F.2d 252 (1 st Cir. 1993). On the other hand, the following cases where Younger was found inapplicable, are similar to this case and supportive of this Court's determination: Doran v. Salem Inn, 422 U.S. 922 (1975); Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995).

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ---.rL -8-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:2294

b. The Court considered but found insufficient legal support for any suggestion that the Plaintiffs are somehow "parties" to the state court injunction because they could be subject to the injunction as non-parties under state law. See People ex rei Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090 (1997); People ex reI. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th 31 (Ct. App. 2007); People v. Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (Ct. App. 2001); Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995).

7. The preliminary injunction sought by the Plaintiffs in this Court does not adequately comply with Rule 65(d)( 1). The proposed order does not "state its terms specifically" and does not "describe in reasonable detail ... the act or acts restrained or required."

a. The Proposed Order provides in pertinent part as follows:

"... THAT Defendants shall not subject or purport to subject any Plaintiff, or any other person similarly situated, to the Order, including by giving notice to any such person that they are subject to criminal prosecution for violation of the Order's terms under California Penal Code section 166(a)(4), unless and until that person has been afforded an opportunity to be heard at a judicial hearing and to contest the application of the Order against them. At such a hearing, Defendants must allow the person the opportunity to contest all issues he or she would have been able to contest had the OCDA not dismissed him or her from the original litigation, and Defendants must permit the person access to the evidence against him or her in substantially the same manner as he or she would have been entitled to through discovery in that litigation." See Plaintiffs' Proposed Preliminary Injunction at 7:27-8:9.

b. Despite its references to the original state court litigation, the Proposed Preliminary Injunction, for example, is not sufficiently clear or specific as to the nature of the "judicial hearing" and the rights of the Plaintiffs at the hearing, including their right to appointed counsel.

c. Additionally, the Proposed Preliminary Injunction appears unworkable as well as unclear, particularly as to the Defendants' responsibilities, authority and obligations at the "judicial hearing." The Proposed Preliminary Injunction, for example, states that "Defendants must allow the person the opportunity to contest all issues he or she would have been able to contest had the OCDA not dismissed him or her from the original litigation ...." It would seem that the state court judicial officer, and not the

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ~ -9-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:2295

Defendants, would determine the nature of the hearing and the parties' rights at the "judicial hearing."

d. In this respect, the injunctive relief requested has some of the difficulties which were found to exist in Hoover. There, the Seventh Circuit indicated that the proposed injunction was "unworkable" and referred to the "difficulty of framing a useful injunction" as well as the dangers of "an empty but potentially mischievous command to these officials ...." Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845, 851 (7th Cir. 1995).

8. In light of the principles of equity and comity, the Court finds that the preliminary injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs would result, at this time, in an inappropriate invocation of the equity powers of the federal court. See Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995). See also Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., Inc., 142 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 1998).

9. In light of the findings and conclusions set forth in this Ruling, particularly in the preceding seventh and eighth paragraphs, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing the equitable relief they seek is appropriate. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 381 (2008). In light of its findings that the proposed preliminary injunction does not meet the requirements of Rule 65(d)(I) and is an inappropriate invocation of the equitable powers of the federal court, the Court finds it is not necessary to address the other factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Winter.

10. In denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, this Court is not deciding the underlying merits, including entitlement to a permanent injunction.

11. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown entitlement at this time to habeas corpus relief as Plaintiffs have not shown that they are prisoners, and/or that they are in custody for purposes ofa writ of habeas corpus. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240 (1963); In re Petersen, 51 Cal. 2d 177 (1958). The Plaintiffs allege that they "do not have contempt proceedings currently pending against them." See Compl. ~~ 8485.

12. The Court finds that it is not necessary to address the Parties' evidentiary objections at this stage. The Court may consider inadmissible evidence in deciding a preliminary

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk .J.L -10-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:2296

injunction motion. See Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984).

JJ:, DATED: November

2009

;L4t~
Hon. ValerIe Baker Fairbank United States District Judge

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk --...IL -11-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:2297

"
,/"'

A

1 HECTOR O. VILLAGRA (SBN 177586)
hvill~a@aclu-sc~org

2 BELINDA ESCOBOSA HELZER (SBN 214178)

bescobosahe1zer@aclu-sc.org

3 ACLU FOUNDAl'ION OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

4 2140 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 209

Orange, CA 92868

5 Telepnone: 714-450-3962

FacsImile: 714-450-3969

6

MARK D. ROSENBAUM (SBN 59940)

7 mrosenbaum@ac1u-sc.org

PETER BIBRING (SBN 223981) .

8 pbibring@ac1u-sc.org

ACLU FOUNDATION OF

9

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

1313 West Eighth Street

10 Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone: 213. 977.9500

11 FacsImile: 213.977.5297

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners

13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

17

MANUEL VASQUEZ MIGUEL . BERNAL LARA GABRIEL BASTIDA,

Case No. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

18

and JAMES DOE, by and through his guardian ad litem) JANE DOE, and all

Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank

19 others similarly sItuated,

rPROPOSEDl PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

20

Plaintiff-Peti tioners,

H.earing Date: November 5, 2009

21

vs.

TIme: 2:30 p.m. Dept.: Courtroom 9

22

TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorne~, in his officiaI ca.Qaci~;

23

ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, CLASS ACTION Orange Police Department, in his official

24

c'!Pacl!y; DOES 1 through 10, in their otlicial and individual capacities,

Action Filed: Sept. 23,2009

25

Defendant-Respondents.

Trial Date: TBD

26

27

28

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:2298

1

Plaintiff-Petitioners MANUEL VASQUEZ, MIGUEL BERNAL LARA,

2 GABRIEL BASTIDA, and JAMES DOE, by and through his guardian ad litem,

3 JANE DOE's, and all others similarly situated (collectively "Plaintiffs"), Order to

4 Show Cause re Preliminarylnjunction in the above-referenced action came up for

5 hearing on November 5,2009 at 2:30 p.m. before the Honorable Valerie Baker

6 Fairbank.

7

Having considered the papers filed in support of and opposition to

8 Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction, the arguments of counsel, and the

9 materials submitted in this case, the Court finds and orders as follows:

10

1. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that Defendant-

11 Respondents TONY RACKAUCKAS, the Orange County District Attorney (the

12 "OCDA") and ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of the Orange Police Department

13 (the "OPD") (collectively "Defendants") violated Plaintiffs' procedural due

14 process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

15 and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, by subjecting them to the

16 provisions of the Order for Permanent Injunction, dated May 14,2009, in People

17 v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, 30-2009-00118739 (Orange

18 County Superior Court) (the "Order") without first providing each of them with a

19 full and fair opportunity to defend themselves.

20

2. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to suffer irreparable

21 harm resulting from Defendants subjecting Plaintiffs to the provisions of the

22 Order.

23

3. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of hardships tips

24 strongly in their favor.

25

4. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that a preliminary injunction is in the

26 public interest.

27

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for preliminary

28 injunction is GRANTED.

-2-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB ' r

,' .".

'-' . "

. ' . ' • .;

... .... ':.
-..:. -' " .,

. .... '. :. .'.'

-\

Document 86

Filed 11/17/09

Page 14 of 19

Page ID #:2299 - . ' '- '-, : .'.-:

ITI.SFURTHER ORDE~Dthat, except as provided below, Defendaiit~··

. 2 .Respondent TONY RACKAUCKAS, the·Ora1).ge CoUnty District Attorney (the

3 ""PCDA;'), 'and Defendant-Respondent ROBERT GUSTAFSON,-Clrief of the .4 Orang~ P<)lice Department (the "bPD"); and their agents, servants, ernployees, and
.5 · th9~e in 'active concert or particip'ation with hiln·ill their:~ffici~l capaci-ti~s . . , ·6 ..··(~~,l1ectively.'~·ef~~d~ts"), are r~straL~ed-~d enjbined-p~nding tri~i 'of this action'-

.7 from undertaking' any steps to Serve or Enforce the Oi-derfor Permanent

8. Injiip.ction; dited May 14; 2009, in People.v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal

9 . Street Gang, 30-2009;..00118739 (Orange COi1i1ty Superior Court) (the "Order")

. 10 . against Plaintiffs; or other 'individuals similarly situated, in the folloWing way:

11

. a) . ' issuing citations, making arrests, or conunencing any prosecutions for

12 al1ege~ violations ?f Section "a" of the Order:

13

Do Not Associate: Anywhere in any public place, any

14

place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not

15

stand, sit, walk, drive, bicycle, gather or appear with (1)

16

any person named herein, (2) anyone you lmow to be a

17

member, participant, agent, associate, servant, employee,

18

aider, or abettor of the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal

19

street gang, or (3) anyone you mow to be acting under,

20

in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or

21

in association with the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal

22·

stree(gang.

.

.

23

b) issuing citation~, making arrests, or cOl11Illencing .any prosecutions for

24 alleged violations of Section b of the Order:

. 25

Do Not Jntimidate: Anywhere in any public place, any '

26

place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not

27

(1) confront, intimidate, annoy, harass, threaten,

28

. challenge, provoke, assa1J.lt, or batter anyone in the

. -3- .

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:2300

1

Safety Zone, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist

2

anyone you know in confronting, intimidating,annoying,

3

harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking,

4

assaulting, or battering anyone in the Safety Zone.

5

c) issuing citations, making arrests, or commencing any prosecutions for

6 alleged violations of Section I of the Order:

7

Obey Curfew if You Are a Minor: If you are under

8

eighteen (18) years of age, anywhere in any public place,

9

any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do

10

not remain in or upon any public place, vacant lot, or

11

business establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m.

12

on any day and 5:00 a.m. of the following day, unless:

13

(1) you are accompanied by your parent(s), legal

14

guardian, or by a responsible adult, (2) you are on an

15

errand without any detour or stop at the direction of your

16

parent(s), legal guardian or responsible adult, (3) you are

17

on a public or private sidewalk in front of your dwelling

18

or a dwelling directly adjacent to your dwelling, (4) you

19

are acting within the course and scope of your lawful

20

employment or business or when you are going to or

21

from such place of lawful employment or business by a

22

reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your

23

home, or when you are going to or from a bona fide

24

interview for lawful employment by a reasonably direct

25

route, without detour, from or to your home, (5) you are

26

going to or from, are attending, or are engaged in, an

27

official school, official religious, or other expressive

28

activity within the scope of your rights under the First

-4-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:2301

1

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

2

which activity is supervised or overseen by an adult

3

person on behalf of any public entity, civic organization,

4

non-profit organization, educational organization,

5

governmental organization, or similar organization,

6

where you are going to or from such activity in a

7

reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to you

8

home, (6) you are going to or from a place of lawful

9

entertainment, recreation, culture, or charity that is open

10

to the public, such as a restaurant, theater, museum,

11

church, sports arena, homeless shelter, food bank,

12

library, public park during operating hours, gymnasium,

13

bookstore, coffee shop, or hospital, for an activity that is

14

supervised or overseen by an adult person on behalf of

15

any public entity, civic organization, or similar

16

organization, where you are going to or from such

17

activity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from

18

or to your home, (7) you are a registered volunteer at any

19

shelter, hospital, school or other charitable institution

20

and you are going to or from your volunteer work in a

21

reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your

22

home, (8) you are responding to an emergency situation,

23

or (9) you are in a vehicle engaged in interstate travel.

24

d) issuing citations, making arrests, or commencing any prosecutions for

25 alleged violations of Section m of the Order:

26

Obey Curfew if You Are an Adult: If you are eighteen

27

(18) years of age or older, anywhere in any public place,

28

any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do

-5-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:2302

1

not remain in or upon any public place, vacant lot, or

2

business establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m.

3

on any day and 5:00 a.m. of the following day, unless:

4

(1) you are on a public or private sidewalk in front of

5

your dwelling or a dwelling directly adjacent to your

6

dwelling, (2) you are acting within the course and scope

7

of your lawful employment or business, or when you are

8

going to or from such place of lawful employment or

9

business by a reasonably direct route, without detour,

10

from or to your home, or when you are going to or from

11

you home to a bona fide interview for lawful

12

employment by a reasonably direct route, without detour,

13

from or to your home, (3) you are going to or from, are

14

attending, or are engaged in, an official school, official

15

religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of

16

your rights under the First Amendment to the

17

Constitution of the United States, where you are going to

18

or from such activity in a reasonably direct route,

19

without detour, from or to you home, (4) you are going

20

to or from a place of lawful entertainment, recreation,

21

culture, or charity that is open to the public, such as a

22

restaurant, theater, museum, church, sports arena,

23

homeless shelter, food bank, library, public park during

24

operating hours, gymnasium, bookstore, coffee shop, or

25

hospital, where you are going to or from such activity in

26

a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your

27

home, (5) you are a registered volunteer at any shelter,

28

hospital, school or other charitable institution and you

-6-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:2303

1

are going to or from your volunteer work in a reasonably

2

direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (6)

3

you are responding to an emergency situation, or (7) you

4

are in a vehicle engaged in interstate travel.

5

e) issuing citations, making arrests, or commencing any prosecutions for

6 alleged violations of Section n of the Order:

7

Stay Away From Alcohol: Anywhere in any public

8

place, or any place accessible to the public, do not (1)

9

drink alcoholic beverages, (2) possess an open container

10

of an alcoholic beverage, (3) unlawfully be under the

11

influence of alcohol, (4) knowingly remain in the

12

presence of anyone possessing an open container of an

13

alcoholic beverage, or (5) knowingly remain in the

14

presence of an open container of an alcoholic beverage.

15

f) issuing citations, making arrests, or commencing any prosecutions for

16 alleged violations of Section p of the Order:

17

Obey All Laws: Anywhere in any public place, any

18

place accessible to the public, or in public view, obey all

19

laws and court orders.

20

g) issuing citations, making arrests, or subject a person to criminal

21 sanctions under any provision of the Order for remaining in the presence of certain

22 classes ofindividuals, unless otherwise prohibited by law.

23

Where conduct proscribed by the Order also constitutes a violation of any

24 other law or court order, nothing in this Injunction limits Defendants' ability to

25 issue citations,make arrests, or commence prosecutions for violations of those

26 other laws or court orders.

27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THATDefendants shall not subject or purport

28 to subject any Plaintiff, or any other person similarly situated, to the Order,

-7-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 86 Filed 11/17/09 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:2304

,

1

including

by

giving

notice

to

any" .

such
.'

perso~ n

that

they

are

'~ubject .. '

tocri.~al

-,2" .pr,~'secuti9nfor violatioD; oftheOtder'stenns under California Pen'al Code s'ec:ti~n'-~

to 3

,
J66(a)(4),

. ;
u n l e s s ,a n d

l1ntiithatpe!son

~aS ,

~'een

afforded

an

oppoIil:mity

be

4 '.heard ata Jl:ldicial ne'mug anQ, to" conte'sffhe application ofthe Ordercagainst-them.
"5 A~ suc~ ~i'hearillg, DE11en.dmts mU:st allow the-person'the opportuni~ to 'contest-~ll
,6 , :issues he or ,sh~would have been 'able to contest had the OCDA not dismissed him .

.7 ' or her from the .originallitigation, and Defendants must pertrrit the person access '

,8' to the evidence against;him or her in substantially the same manner asheor'she '

,

'

9 ,would have been entitled to through discovery in that litigation.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs do not have to posfa bond;

11 , this order shall become effective irrnnediately, and shall continue in effect until

,12 this Court enters final judgment in this action or otherwise lifts the injunction.

13

14 Dated: - - - - - - -
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

. {

24 '

25

26

27

28

The Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank U.S. District Court Judge
-8-

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 MANUEL VASQUEZ, et al.,

CASE NO. SACV 09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

12

Plaintiff-Petitioners, FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER

13

vs.

COURT TRIAL

14 TONY RACKAUCKAS, et al.,

15

Defendants-

Respondents.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

///

27

///

28

///

13793623.1
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

After presiding over the bench trial, considering the evidence and counsel’s

2 arguments, and reading the parties’ post-trial briefs, this court rendered its

3 Statement of Tentative Decision after Court Trial and made an accompanying order

4 regarding preparation of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. L.R.

5 52-2 - 52-8. The Statement of Tentative Decision was made after an eleven day

6 court trial on the Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and

7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkts. 1-3). After further considering the

8 evidence and the parties’ documents filed in response to the Court’s Tentative

9 Decision (Dkts. 396-404), the Court hereby makes its Findings of Fact and

10 Conclusions of Law after Court Trial.

11

Pursuant to grounds shown by the Plaintiffs as set forth herein, the Court

12 finds for the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on the First Claim against each

13 Defendant (42 U.S.C. Section 1983 - Procedural Due Process Under U.S. Const.

14 Amend. XIV) and the Second Claim against each Defendant (Procedural Due

15 Process Under Cal. Const. Art. I, Section 7). The Plaintiffs prevail in their

16 challenge to the Defendants’ action of enforcing the gang injunction against

17 Plaintiffs after the OCDA dismissed them from the state court suit prior to

18 judgment. Procedural due process required a pre-deprivation hearing in the

19 circumstances presented in this case. The remedies sought by Plaintiffs of

20 declaratory relief and injunctive relief are granted as addressed below. On the other

21 hand, the writ of habeas is denied in that the Plaintiffs have not shown that any of

22 them are in “custody” for purposes of a writ of habeas corpus.

23

There have been substantial changes since this court denied the Plaintiffs’

24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. These changes justify a Judgment in favor of

25 the Plaintiffs. First, the Court has now had the benefit of a lengthy trial and live

26 testimony and therefore is in a better position to not only judge the weight of the

27 evidence but also its credibility. As set forth below, the Court finds that the weight

28 of the evidence and the law favors the Plaintiffs.

13793623.1

- 1 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

Additionally, the equitable relief sought by the Plaintiffs has more support,

2 including evidentiary support presented at trial. The injunctive relief sought has

3 been clarified and narrowed. The declaratory and injunctive relief is not

4 inappropriate, unworkable or an affront to comity or an impairment of sovereign

5 powers or dignity of the State of California. This Court is not instructing the

6 state court as to the nature of any hearing. This action and the Court’s order are

7 directed to the Defendants, and not the state court. As set forth below, the

8 Defendants are barred from enforcement of the State’s Order for Permanent

9 Injunction against the Plaintiffs.

10

Findings of Fact

11 The Parties to this Action

12 1. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Lara, and Gabriel Bastida

13 bring this action individually on behalf of a class certified as:

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.

All persons named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009, who appeared in the Orange County Superior Court to defend themselves and were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney’s office, and who did not have contempt proceedings pending against them arising out of the Order for Permanent Injunction against “Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang” dated May 14, 2009, as of the date of the filing of this litigation - September 23, 2009. Dkt. 135. Additionally, Plaintiff Randy Bastida brings this action individually and on

21 behalf of a class certified as:

22

23

All juveniles named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange County Superior Court, 30-

24

2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009, for whom no guardian ad litem was appointed, who were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County

25

District Attorney’s office, and who did not have contempt proceedings pending against them arising out of the Order for Permanent Injunction

26

against “Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang” dated May 14, 2009, as of the date of the filing of this litigation - September 23, 2009.

Dkt. 135. 27

28

13793623.1

- 2 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 3. The Defendants are Tony Rackauckas, the Orange County District Attorney 2 (“OCDA”) and Robert Gustafson, Chief of the Orange Police Department 3 (“OPD”).The Defendants are sued only in their official capacities. Compl. ¶ 1. 4 The Complaint in this Federal Action 5 4. On September 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Lara, Gabriel 6 Bastida, and Randy Bastida, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Plaintiffs 7 (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 8 Relief and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against the Defendants. The 9 Complaint has two causes of action for procedural due process violations: the first 10 is a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. 11 Constitution, and the second is a claim under the California Constitution, Art. I, 12 section 7. Compl. ¶¶ 97-103. 13 5. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants and their directors, officers, agents 14 and employees from enforcing the terms of the permanent injunction order 15 against them issued in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et 16 al., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739 and those similarly 17 situated “without first providing them with a full constitutionally-adequate 18 hearing.” Compl. Prayer for Relief; Plaintiffs’ Closing Brief (dkt. 376), page 50 19 and Reply Brief (dkt. 387), page 26. 20 6. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ tactics in subjecting them to a gang 21 injunction, obtained via default against the gang to which they allegedly belong, 22 after dismissing the Plaintiffs from that suit. Compl. ¶ 4. 23 7. On September 29, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte 24 Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, but set an Order to Show Cause 25 re Preliminary Injunction hearing for November 5, 2009. Dkt. 45. On November 26 17, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 27 86. On September 27, 2010, the Court denied the parties' cross motions for 28 summary judgment. Dkt. 213.

13793623.1

- 3 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 The State Court Action

2 8. On February 17, 2009, the OCDA, on behalf of The People of the State of

3 California, filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange

4 (“OCSC”), a Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction to Abate a

5 Public Nuisance. People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al.,

6 Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009-00118739 (hereinafter, the “State 7 Action”). 11/16 a.m. RT 17:5-14, 64:21-65:5; see also Trial Ex.126.1

8 9. In the State Action, the OCDA sued not only the Orange Varrio Cypress

9 Criminal Street Gang (“OVC”) as an unincorporated association but also 115

10 individuals and 150 Does alleged to be active members or associates of OVC.

11 Trial Ex. 126.

12 10. On February 23, 2009, the OCDA filed an ex parte application to serve

13 OVC under California Civil Procedure Code § 416.40(c). Trial Ex. 274. The

14 OCDA requested and obtained permission to serve the gang via a named

15 defendant, Patrick DeHerrera, whom the OCDA alleged was an OVC member.

16 Trial Ex. 275.

17 11. On or about February 24 and 25, 2009, OPD officers served the summons,

18 complaint, and supporting papers totaling at least 500 pages on numerous

19 individuals named in the state court complaint, including Plaintiffs. 11/16 a.m.

20 RT 78:9-20; see also 11/9 a.m. RT 6:5-10.

21 12. Ultimately, 32 defendants (adults and represented juveniles) – including

22 Plaintiffs Lara, Vasquez, and Gabriel Bastida – filed an answer, general denial,

23 or otherwise formally appeared in response to the complaint. Trial Exs. 68, 80,

24 174; Pls.’ RJN Ex. 3 at Dkt. Nos. 63 & 207; Pls.’ RJN Exs. 25 through 46,

25

26

1 The facts found in this section have not materially changed from the facts found in the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 86), and are

27

supported by the evidence introduced at trial and through Plaintiffs' Request For Judicial Notice (see dkt. 329, 372).

28

13793623.1

- 4 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 114, 53, 101 through 104. 2 13. On May 12, 2009, the OCDA filed a request for dismissal against 62 3 individual defendants in the State Action. This group included the 32 individuals 4 who responded to the complaint either by filing a general denial and/or an answer 5 and approximately 27 unrepresented juveniles. The dismissal was entered by the 6 Clerk of the OCSC on May 12, 2009. 11/16 p.m. RT 39:3-23; Trial Ex. 17. 7 14. On May 14, 2009, the OCSC granted the OCDA’s request for default and 8 judgment against OVC and those individual defendants who had not filed a 9 response to the complaint and had default entered against them. See Trial Ex. 10 267. The OCSC then signed the Order for Permanent Injunction (the “Order”). 11 Trial Ex. 19. 12 15. The Order states that it applies to OVC and to all OVC’s “members, 13 participants, agents, associates, servants, employees, aiders, and abettors whose 14 membership, participation, agency, association, service, employment, aid or 15 abetment is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical and all 16 persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in 17 association with the OVC criminal street gang in any manner that is more than 18 nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical.” The terms of the Order applied 19 to a limited gang operation area in the City of Orange, which the state court 20 termed the “Safety Zone.” Trial Ex. 19. 21 16. In early June 2009, the OCDA, by and through the OPD, began to serve the 22 Order for Permanent Injunction. 11/16 p.m. RT 46:6-8. As of September 3, 23 2009, 98 individuals were served with the Order for Permanent Injunction, 24 including at least 48 individuals who had been named in the litigation against 25 OVC and its members but were voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA. 11/16 p.m. 26 RT 46:15-47:8; compare Trial Ex. 17 with Trial Ex. 78; see also 11/23 a.m. RT 27 55:21-57:13. 28 17. Along with the Order for Permanent Injunction, the OCDA and OPD

13793623.1

- 5 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 served a notice stating:

2

YOU ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT ON MAY

3

14, 2009, JUDGE KAZUHA RU MAKINO SIGNED AN ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAI NST

4

THE ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMI NAL STREET GANG.

5

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG ARE SUBJECT TO

6

THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

7

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG, WHETHER OR NOT

NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT OR NAMED IN THE

8

ORIGINAL LAWSUIT AND LATER DISMISSED FROM

THE LAWSUIT . . . . ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF

9

THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.

10

. . . ALL PERSONS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL FACE CRIMINAL

11

PROSECUTION

12

PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 166(a)(4) FOR ANY WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY

13

PROVISION LISTED IN THE PERMANENT GANG

14

INJUNCTION.

15 Trial Ex. 8; 11/16 p.m. RT 47:9-48:5. The OCDA did not submit the notice to

16 the OCSC for approval before the notice was served with the permanent order.

17 11/16 p.m. RT 48:6-9.

18 18. On July 10, 2009, the OCSC granted Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida’s request to

19 vacate the default entered against him and to be permitted to contest the allegations

20 against him. Trial Ex. 205; see also Trial Ex. 204; 11/9 a.m. RT 26:13-15. On

21 May 12, 2009, the OCDA had sought and obtained entry of default against Mr.

22 Bastida. Trial Ex. 267; see also 11/9 a.m. RT 23:7-14. On May 15, 2009, Gabriel

23 Bastida had filed a request to vacate the default (Trial Ex. 204) and a general

24 denial (Trial Ex. 174), requesting that he be allowed to present a defense at trial

25 and contest the allegations against him.

26 19. On July 16, 2009, the OCDA dismissed without prejudice the case against

27 Gabriel Bastida. Trial Ex. 70; see also 11/9 a.m. RT 28:17-21.

28 20. On August 13, 2009, Defendant OPD served Gabriel Bastida with the

13793623.1

- 6 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 Order. Trial Ex. 78; see also 11/9 a.m. RT 30:9-13.

2 Specific Findings After Bench Trial in the Federal Court

3 21. The evidence presented at trial established that the factors set forth in

4 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) weigh clearly in favor of the

5 Plaintiffs. The evidence showed that Plaintiffs’ private interest was strong, as

6 the Order restricts some of their most basic liberties. Plaintiffs were not given

7 pre-deprivation hearings before Defendants subjected them to the Order,

8 especially in light of the dismissals requested by the Defendants. (See e.g.

9 Anderson trial testimony 11/24 a.m. RT 34:20-51:23, 83:16-84:24 (regarding

10 decision to dismiss)). In sum, their constitutional rights were violated.

11

a. Procedural due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing in the

12 circumstances of this case especially where the class of individuals deprived of

13 rights is vaguely defined and difficult-to-discern, where the prohibited conduct is

14 indefinite or unclear, and where the Defendants’ imposition of the Order on

15 Plaintiffs interferes with the Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in common day-to-day

16 lawful activities. (Trial testimony Aaron Drootin, RT 11/19; trial testimony of Dr.

17 Malcolm Klein).

18

b. The Order on its face implicates Plaintiffs’ liberty interests, including

19 the following provisions: “Do Not Associate”,2 “Curfew” (barring Plaintiffs from

20 being out in public, in public view, or any place accessible to the public between

21 the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., with limited exceptions for activities including

22 school, work, religious activities, or paid entertainment), “Stay Away From

23 Alcohol” (barring Plaintiffs from consuming, possessing or being in the presence

24

25

2 The “Do Not Associate” provision prohibits Plaintiffs, “in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view,” from standing, sitting, walking,

26

driving, bicycling, gathering or appearing with anyone named as a defendant in the State Action, or anyone they know to be a “member, participant, agent associate,

27

servant, employee, aider, or abettor of” OVC, or anyone they know to be “acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with”

28 OVC. Trial Exh. 19 at 10.

13793623.1

- 7 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 of an open container of alcohol, in any place in public or accessible to the public),

2 “Do Not Intimidate” (barring “confront[ing]”, “annoy[ing]...” provok[ing] anyone

3 in any public place....”), “Do Not Wear Gang Clothing” (prohibiting wearing the

4 words or color orange). See Trial Ex. 19 at 10, 13, 14-16. As the Plaintiffs show,

5 the Order implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, including rights of free

6 movement, free speech and associational rights. (Pls. Closing Brief, Dkt. 376, pg.

7 10-13 and trial evidence cited page 13:9-22). Plaintiffs’ trial testimony provides

8 examples that further illustrate the deprivation of liberties:

9

i. Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez, who has lived his entire life in the

10

Safety Zone, has curtailed going to parks, stores, restaurants,

11

and the mall, for fear of being arrested for violating the

12

association clause of the Order. (11/10 a.m. RT 25:23-26:5,

13

27:3-12, 28:6-29:11.) Mr. Vasquez testified that he no longer

14

goes anywhere in the injunction area with his brother, with

15

whom he lives and who has also been served with the Order.

16

(11/10 a.m. RT 28:18-29:5.)

17

ii. Plaintiff Miguel Lara no longer goes with his family to their

18

favorite restaurants, to the local pool where Mr. Lara learned to

19

swim, to parks where the family previously picnicked, or to the

20

City of Orange’s annual street fair. (11/10 p.m. RT 53:19-55:9,

21

56:8-19; 11/23 a.m. RT 55:21-57:13.) Mr. Lara also

22

participated in vigils, demonstrations, and protests within the

23

injunction area, but ceased doing so after being served with the

24

Order, for fear he would be violating its terms by confronting

25

and challenging government policies and associating with

26

individuals on the injunction list. (11/10 p.m. RT 42:17-43:12,

27

47:16-48:14, 49:18-20, 50:5-15.) Such persons include Mr.

28

Lara’s twin brother, who also has been served with the Order.

13793623.1

- 8 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

iii. Plaintiffs Gabriel and Randy Bastida, brothers who have both

2

been served with the Order, do not drive through the injunction

3

area together or visit family together, or attend family functions

4

that are held outdoors, for fear of violating the Order. (11/9 a.m.

5

RT 4:5-5:13, 36:24-37:13; see also 11/9 a.m. RT 33:16-34:1.)

6

When their grandfather had a stroke and was taken to a hospital

7

in the Safety Zone in the middle of the night, their mother was

8

forced to decide whether to permit the brothers to visit the

9

publicly accessible hospital, an act that would violate both the

10

curfew and association provisions of the Order. (11/9 p.m. RT

11

8:3-9:10.) The Bastidas also refrained from participating in

12

protests, at the behest of their mother, out of fear of violating the

13

Order’s “Do Not Associate” provision. (11/9 p.m. RT 6:9-7:10.)

14

c. On November 30, 2010, the Court toured the Safety Zone by car on a

15 route that took well over an hour. The Safety Zone covers an area of approximately

16 3.78 square miles, or about sixteen percent of the City of Orange. (11/16 a.m. RT

17 45:9-46:8; see also Pls.’ RJN Ex. 2.) The Safety Zone covers various types of

18 neighborhoods, including the following: dense residential areas; several schools and

19 the Friendly Center; at least four parks (Hart, El Camino, Killefer, and Sycamore);

20 the Chapman University campus and its surroundings; the historic downtown

21 Orange area around “the Circle,” which includes a vibrant commercial district;

22 government buildings and offices (including Orange City Hall, the police station,

23 and the public library); a hospital; and several busy commercial areas, including

24 long commercial strips along Tustin Avenue, Chapman Avenue, Main Street, and

25 Batavia Street, which include small independent businesses, large chain stores and a

26 mall. This area encompasses hundreds of retail and commercial businesses, and

27 hundreds of homes and apartments. (11/16 a.m. RT 45:9-46:5; 11/9 a.m. RT 34:2-

28 36:15; Trial Exs. 355 & 355A; see also RJN Ex.2.) Application of the Order’s

13793623.1

- 9 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 terms in this area, particularly as against individuals who have spent much of their

2 lives living in and around the area, imposes significant restrictions on Plaintiffs’

3 liberty interests.

4

d. Defendants’ admitted policy is to arrest, transport and book those

5 Plaintiffs alleged to have violated the Order and hold them pending bond or

6 arraignment, rather than citing and releasing them. (11/18 a.m. RT 8:18-9:20;

7 Trial Ex. 6 at 26). Defendants also have a policy of seeking increased bail

8 amounts for violations of the Order. (11/18 a.m. RT 10:10-22; Trial Ex. 6 at

9 28, 33.)

10

e. Deprived of discovery and a hearing by OCDA’s voluntary dismissal,

11 the Plaintiffs were not given notice of and access to evidence, or the opportunity

12 to confront and to be heard as required by due process. (11/16 p.m. RT 66:21-

13 67:23; 11/16 a.m. RT 70:11-13; 11/17 p.m. RT 24:8-14; 11/18 p.m. RT 36:25-

14 37:10; 11/9 a.m. RT 8:16-9:7;11/16 a.m. RT 78:21-79:8). Nor were the Plaintiffs

15 given the right to have a neutral decision-maker decide whether they were active

16 participants in OVC.

17

f. In this case, post-deprivation hearings cannot cure the lack of

18 process. Intervention in the State Action, post-arrest contempt proceedings and

19 the “removal” procedure are not adequate post- deprivation remedies in this

20 case.

21 22. The risk of erroneous deprivation is substantial.

22

a. Defendants served the Order on individuals they determined to be

23 “active participants” of OVC causing a nuisance in the Safety Zone. (11/16

24 p.m. RT 45:16-23; 11/23 a.m. RT 55:21-57:13; 11/18 a.m. RT 25:5-9, 26:6-

25 21.) The term “active participant” of a criminal street gang is defined in the

26 penal code and case law as a person who participates in, or acts in concert with

27 a criminal street gang in more than a nominal, passive, inactive, or purely

28 technical way. (11/16 a.m. RT 33:17-21; see People v. Englebrecht, 88

13793623.1

- 10 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1261 (2001).) The OPD tracked who had been served with

2 the Order. (11/17 p.m. RT 83:4-6.) Once an individual had been served with

3 the Order, Defendants could arrest and prosecute the individual for a violation

4 of the Order’s terms. (11/18 a.m. RT 10:1-4; Trial Exh. 6 at 26; 11/18 a.m. RT

5 18:2-19:5; Trial Ex. 32 at 019.; 11/23 a.m. RT at 25:21-26:6.))

6

b. In determining which individuals were active participants of OVC

7 and should be served with the Order, the Defendants undertook a unilateral,

8 fact-intensive determination, based on one-sided and untested evidence and

9 requiring judgmental questions not determined by objective measures. (Trial

10 testimony of DDA Hernandez and Det. Nigro; 11/17 p.m. RT 57:25-58:11;

11 11/18 a.m. RT 39:3-6; trial testimony of Aaron Drootin, 11/19 p.m.; and

12 Plaintiffs’ Closing Brief, Dkt. 376, pages 17 - 20). The Court bases this

13 determination on the following findings:

14

i. Defendants repeatedly testified that they did not use a

15

mathematical formula and had no fixed list or set criteria to determine

16

whether an individual was an active participant of OVC. Instead,

17

Defendants testified that whether or not someone was an active

18

participant of OVC was a fact-intensive, case-by-case determination

19

based on a wide variety of information and factors. (11/17 p.m. RT

20

57:25-58:11 (Det. Nigro testifying that there is no “equation” to

21

determine gang membership); 11/16 a.m. RT 39:19-21(Mr.

22

Hernandez’s assessment of whether or not an individual is an active

23

participant of OVC was fact specific, case-by-case); 11/16 a.m. RT

24

37:15-18 (Mr. Hernandez looked at a lot of factors); 11/16 a.m. RT

25

39:5-11 (Mr. Hernandez had no objective criteria); 11/17 p.m. RT

26

55:7-11 (Det. Nigro made a case-by-case determination for each

27

individual based on any and all factual information available to him);

28

11/17 p.m. RT 56:19-21 (Det. Nigro did not have a fixed list of

13793623.1

- 11 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

criteria); 11/24 a.m. RT 58:8-19, 89:6-14 (Assistant District Attorney

2

John Anderson testifying that determination of gang participation was

3

made on “totality of the circumstances,” that there was no “bright line

4

rule”).) For example, Detective Nigro testified that there were “many,

5

many different ways that somebody could participate in OVC,” so that

6

there was no list of activities that equaled active participation, and that

7

membership in OVC is “different for different people,” such that

8

“every situation can be different.” (See 11/17 p.m. RT 53:23-54:4,

9

54:21-55:5, 61:22-25.)

10

ii. Defendants evaluated the information provided to them based on

11

subjective impressions as gang police and prosecutors, rather than

12

clear standards or specific, objective measures. (11/17 p.m. RT 56:22-

13

57:1 (Det. Nigro used his “knowledge [and] experience[,] guided by

14

the law” to determine active participation); 11/16 a.m. RT 42:10-17

15

(whether an individual was an active participant of OVC was based on

16

Hernandez’s experience as a prosecutor). Such a determination, which

17

is not “susceptible of reasonably precise measurement by external

18

standards,” poses a high risk of error and requires greater procedural

19

protections. Chalkboard, Inc. v. Brandt, 902 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir.

20

1989); see infra, Concl. Law ¶10(b). For example, OPD Officer Aaron

21

Drootin testified that, although he had submitted a sworn declaration in

22

the State Action attesting that individuals were “known OVC gang

23

participants,” he had no basis for this statement, that such a

24

determination was outside his expertise as a patrol officer, and that he

25

had no opinion on how to determine gang membership or participation.

26

(11/19 p.m. RT 39:3-40:12.) Defendants’ reliance on factors such as

27

association with gang members, spending time in a gang area,

28

“admissions,” or examples of criminal conduct does not provide clear

13793623.1

- 12 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

standards or measures because of the significant ambiguity and range

2

of conduct encompassed in these factors. See, e.g., 11/19 p.m. RT

3

32:10-33:7 (OPD Officer Drootin admitting that a person knowing

4

people from OVC does not indicate gang membership); 11/19 p.m. RT

5

64:4-66:4) (Dr. Klein testifying that “admissions” vary; 11/19 p.m. RT

6

33:14-34:12 (Drootin testifying consumption of drugs or alcohol not

7

gang-related activities); 11/19 p.m. RT 66:17-67:1 (Dr. Klein testifying

8

that drug and alcohol crimes “not at all” valuable to determining gang

9

membership because crimes very common among non-gang members);

10

(11/19 p.m. RT 29:14-24 (despite describing admission of gang

11

membership in declaration, officer had no recollection of individual’s

12

statement); compare 11/19 a.m. RT 34:11-23 (Det. Nigro stating that

13

non-gang member could have friends or family that are gang

14

members); 11/19 p.m. RT 60:21-61:5 (Dr. Klein testifying same); with

15

11/19 a.m. RT 9:16-20, 34:7-9, 35:10-23 (Det. Nigro stating

16

association was in his view sufficient to establish gang participation).

17

iii. In making a determination as to who was an active participant of

18

OVC, Defendants considered voluminous records from varied sources,

19

including police reports, field interview cards, STEP notices, and

20

photographs. (11/17 p.m. RT 45:22-46:9, 46:19-48:1; 11/16/10 a.m.

21

RT 37:11-14.) The documents, taken together, totaled thousands of

22

pages. (11/18 a.m. RT 62:10-21; see Trial Ex. 818 (collected packets).)

23

Defendants also relied on information outside these documents to

24

reach their conclusions, including undocumented interviews and

25

information from confidential informants, citizen informants, members

26

of the community, and other gang participants, as well as the personal

27

knowledge and observations of members of OCDA and OPD. (11/17

28

p.m. RT 50:24-51:3; 11/18 p.m. RT 36:25-38:6.)

13793623.1

- 13 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

iv. In determining who was an active participant of OVC,

2

Defendants made credibility determinations of the type typically

3

reserved for Courts and/or juries. Det. Nigro testified that some of the

4

documentation he reviewed contained explicit denials of membership

5

in OVC by Plaintiffs, but he did not “give th[ose] statement[s] much

6

weight.” (11/19 a.m. RT 47:4-17.)

7

c. As Plaintiffs’ assert in their closing memorandum (Dkt. 376) and as

8 the evidence presented at trial showed, determining whether an individual is an

9 active participant of a criminal street gang is a multi-factored, complex and fact

10 specific determination.

11

i. The testimony of plaintiffs’ experts established that gangs in

12

general are “informal” groups — groups without explicit structures

13

such as constitutions, bylaws, or appointed or elected officers. (11/17

14

p.m. RT 60:3-4; 11/19 p.m. RT 55:17-25.) As such, gangs – and OVC

15

in particular – lack formalities that might provide objective and easily

16

verifiable ways of establishing membership, such as rosters, or dues-

17

paying lists, lists of employees, or employment schedules. (11/19 p.m.

18

RT 55:21-56:12; see also RT 11/10 p.m. 3:17-24.) Deciding who is a

19

member or participant of OVC thus requires judgment rather than

20

simply confirming objective criteria. (11/19 p.m. RT 56:9-12.) In other

21

words, there is an absence of clear, objective criteria for determining

22

whether a person is an active gang participant.

23

ii. The testimony of plaintiffs’ experts established that joining a

24

gang is often a “fluid process” in which there is not always a clear

25

point at which a person becomes a member or participant of a gang.

26

(11/19 p.m. RT 62:10-63:8; 11/17 p.m. RT 61:12-21.) Both Dr. Klein

27

and Prof. Vigil testified that while gangs sometimes have rites for

28

entering a gang, those individuals who have grown up in the local

13793623.1

- 14 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

neighborhood or who have family members in the gang may be

2

deemed members of the gang without undergoing any kind of

3

initiation. (11/10 a.m. RT at 114:12-115:1; 11/19 p.m. RT 62:10-24.)

4

This lack of clear, objective criteria for initiation into a gang further

5

complicates the determination of who is an “active participant.”

6

iii. The testimony of plaintiffs’ experts established that a person’s

7

gang participation often changes over time. Plaintiffs’ experts testified

8

that gang members often leave the gang as they age. (11/10 a.m. RT at

9

113:18-114:5 (Vigil); 11/19 p.m. RT 62:7-12 (Klein)), with median

10

gang tenure lasting from about a year to as long as three to five years,

11

depending on the type of gang. (11/19 p.m. RT 61:6-21.) Dr. Klein

12

testified that people frequently move in and out of gangs, which makes

13

it difficult to determine membership or participation at any single point

14

in time. (11/19 p.m. RT 58:8-10.)

15

iv. The testimony of plaintiffs’ experts demonstrated that gang

16

membership may be particularly difficult to determine in longstanding,

17

territorial gangs based around a neighborhood, because gang members

18

and nonmembers often grow up together in the same neighborhood and

19

have social relationships and friendships unrelated to the gang. (11/19

20

p.m. RT 60:7-14 (Dr. Klein testifying about conflation between gang

21

and family and neighborhood).) For example, plaintiffs put on

22

evidence that individuals use the term “OVC” to refer to the historical

23

Cypress Street Barrio located within the Safety Zone, and thus use of

24

the term “OVC” may not be an indication of gang membership. (11/19

25

a.m. RT 69:9-70:25; see also 11/23 a.m. RT 4:9-19), which is often

26

identified by the same name, “OVC” (11/23 a.m. RT 11:1-14, 12:7-

27

14.)

28

d. The trial testimony shows that additional procedural protections –

13793623.1

- 15 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 such as access to evidence, discovery, and cross-examination – would significantly

2 reduce the risk of error in such a fact-intensive, vaguely defined determination as

3 who is an active gang participant, in particular by helping to distinguish between

4 the parties’ subjective judgments and objective facts. (See 11/19 p.m. RT 29:6-13,

5 39:3-7, 40:2-12, 71:23-72:16; Trial Ex. 26.) For example, Det. Nigro testified that

6 his determination that one Plaintiff was a gang participant relied in part on field

7 interview cards where an officer had checked a box indicating that the subject was

8 “flying colors/gang attire,” although Det. Nigro admitted that he did not see the

9 clothing and did not know why the officer had checked the box. (11/18 p.m. RT

10 44:9-17 (Trial Ex. 800 at 12); 11/19 a.m. RT 39:16-19, 40:8-11, 41:14-23.) As

11 another example, Det. Nigro testified that he relied in part on reports of admissions

12 from other officers on field interview cards, where a box marked “admission” was

13 checked, even though he did not know what question had been asked or what

14 response was given that caused the officer to check the box. (11/19 a.m. RT 43:14-

15 20, 44:18-45:3.)

16 23. The government has no legitimate interest in failing to provide a pre-

17 deprivation hearing.

18

a. Although the OCDA and OPD have a strong interest in protecting

19 the community against criminal activity and in an fiscally sound manner, the

20 relevant inquiry for the Mathews analysis is not into the government’s interest

21 generally, but rather into the government’s interest “in providing (or not

22 providing) specific procedures.” Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1355-1358

23 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, the government has no interest in failing to provide a pre-

24 deprivation hearing. As Assistant District Attorney Anderson recognized,

25 holding an evidentiary hearing before someone is subjected to a gang injunction

26 promotes important government interests, and that allowing only post-

27 deprivation remedies creates “a huge problem.” 11/24 a.m. RT 101:11-102:2; see

28 Haygood, 769 F.2d at 1357.

13793623.1

- 16 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

b. Defendants do not show the existence of an administrative, fiscal

2 or other substantial burdens in providing additional pre- deprivation safeguards.

3 They do not, for example, show that a pre-deprivation hearing would cause

4 more expense or delay than post- deprivation proceedings.

5

c. Defendants did not show that a need for prompt action justified a

6 lack of due process.

7

i. By May 2009, when the OCDA dismissed Plaintiffs from the

8

State Action, the OCDA had already obtained preliminary injunctions

9

against OVC as an entity and nearly eighty seven individuals. (Tr. Ex.

10

80 at 2; Tr. Ex. 82.) Thus, to the extent that Defendants had any

11

interest in the prompt imposition of a gang injunction, that interest had

12

been met through these preliminary injunction orders.

13

ii. Defendants introduced the testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Grogger, an

14

economist, who testified that gang injunctions reduce violent crime, on

15

average, by five to ten percent a year in the first year after they are

16

introduced, but that measurable statistically significant reductions

17

occur only in assaults, rather than other crimes, and only for the first

18

year after injunction are introduced. 11/23 p.m. RT 18:3-22; 12:16-

19

16:4. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Klein, testified that there were conflicting

20

studies as to the effectiveness of gang injunctions in reducing crime.

21

11/19 p.m. RT 77:7-79:17. The ultimate effectiveness of gang

22

injunctions, however, is not relevant to whether a hearing should be

23

required before subjecting a person to one. Dr. Grogger testified that

24

he had no opinion on whether providing a hearing before subjecting

25

somebody to an injunction would make a gang injunction more or less

26

effective. 11/23 p.m. RT 23:18-21.

27 24. In sum, the Defendants failed to provide adequate due process. Claimed

28 post-deprivation remedies do not cure the lack of process and are in any event

13793623.1

- 17 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 inadequate. Additional safeguards are required in this case, particularly some kind

2 of hearing - notice and the opportunity to be heard - before the State deprives a

3 person of liberty.

4

a. As the Plaintiffs set forth, intervention in the State Action is not an

5 adequate remedy for the lack of pre-deprivation hearing. First, the nature and

6 even the very possibility of intervention as a post-deprivation remedy is

7 speculative: Plaintiffs would have to move for intervention in the state court--a

8 motion that could be denied. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 387. No statute or case

9 law establishes that plaintiffs would be entitled to intervene as a matter of right,

10 and no clear procedures exist to guide how such intervention would take place or

11 what procedural safeguards might be provided to plaintiffs. See 11/17 a.m. RT

12 7:2-16. Second, even if plaintiffs were successful in intervening in the State

13 Action, Defendants provided no indication of how long the process of obtaining

14 procedural protections such as discovery and an evidentiary hearing could take--

15 factors that would be significant because, in Defendants’ view, Plaintiffs would

16 remain subject to the Order until the State Court ruled to the contrary. Finally,

17 even assuming the adult Plaintiffs could intervene pro per, the class of juvenile

18 Plaintiffs, who cannot represent themselves in Court or have their parents

19 represent them without a guardian ad litem, have no ability to intervene in the

20 State Action. 11/24 a.m. RT 35:4-37:22; 11/17 a.m. RT 33:12-18, 34:2-21; CAL.

21 CIV. CODE § 372; CAL. FAM. CODE § 6601 see also Trial Exs. 80, 82

22 (illustrating that many of the minors were unrepresented).

23

b. As the Plaintiffs set forth, post-arrest contempt proceedings are

24 an inadequate remedy. (Plaintiffs’ Closing, pages 38 - 40.) In order to avail

25 themselves of a contempt hearing, Plaintiffs would first have to violate the

26 Order’s terms, thereby subjecting themselves to arrest, jail, significant bail

27 payments, and a potential sentence of up to six months in jail and a $1,000

28 fine. 11/18 a.m. RT 8:18-9:20, 10:10-22; Trial Ex. 6 at 26, 28, 33; see also

13793623.1

- 18 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 Cal. Penal Code § 166(a)(4).) Moreover, even if the individual plaintiff was

2 found not guilty of contempt, this finding would not preclude Defendants

3 from arresting that Plaintiff for any subsequent alleged violation of the Order.

4

c. The Defendants’ proposed “removal” procedure is not adequate.

5 First, the precise nature of the process and the potential relief it offers remain

6 unclear. Defendants admitted that the only written information that exists

7 concerning the procedure is the single-page document that was served on

8 named defendants at the outset of the State Action. (Trial Ex. 16; 11/16 p.m.

9 RT 70:24- 71:7.) Defendants also admitted that the process described in this

10 document had never been implemented with regard to OVC or any of the five

11 other injunctions the OCDA had obtained. (11/16 p.m. RT 73:4-7.) The one

12 individual that Defendants stated had taken advantage of the “removal”

13 procedure appeared to negotiate an informal agreement under which the

14 Defendants voluntarily agreed not to enforce the Order against him, without

15 use of the “removal” procedure. (11/16 p.m. RT 76:9-16, 77:16-21.)

16 Moreover, even if the “removal” process operates as set forth in the one-page

17 document, it falls short of providing adequate process in several respects.

18 The petition for removal is adjudicated not by a neutral decision-maker, but

19 by a “panel of two Senior Deputy District Attorneys” and “a representative

20 from the Probation Department” – in other words, a majority of the Panel is

21 composed of representatives of the entity (OCDA) that made the decision to

22 subject the individual to the injunction in the first place. (Trial Ex. 16.) There

23 is no provision for discovery, and the burden is placed on the petitioning

24 individual to demonstrate that he or she is not and has never been an active

25 participant in the gang. (See Trial Ex. 16.) Neither does the procedure

26 provide for any right to appeal the decision of the three-person panel. In

27 short, this process strips away many of the critical components of due

28 process, including an adversarial hearing before a neutral decision-maker,

13793623.1

- 19 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 prior notice of the evidence, the ability to confront witnesses, and the

2 heightened standard of proof.

3

d. The weight of the evidence also shows that the Defendants

4 violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the California Constitution. See

5 People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal. 3d 260, 268 (1979). In examining when procedural

6 safeguards are required under the California Constitution, California courts

7 apply the Mathews balancing inquiry with the addition of a fourth factor: the

8 dignitary interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds, and

9 consequences of the action and in enabling them to present their side of the

10 story before a responsible governmental official. Id. at 269; Ryan v. Cal.

11 Interscholastic Fed’n, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1071-72 (2001). This dignitary

12 interest encompasses the appearance of fairness to those involved. See People

13 v. Hernandez, 160 Cal. App. 3d 725, 747-48 (1984). Here, the decisions about

14 whom to subject to the injunction’s restrictions are made unilaterally and

15 without notice or opportunity to be heard, by the same police and prosecutors

16 whose thresholds for enforcement and prosecution are made significantly

17 lower by the injunction. The appearance of fairness factor under the California

18 constitution weighs further in favor of Plaintiffs.

19 25. The evidence proves that OPD and OCDA are liable individually on

20 counts one and two of the Complaint and that they are also are liable as co-

21 conspirators. Contrary to the arguments made in the OPD brief, (Dkt. 373),

22 the elements of conspiracy as well as individual liability have been met. See

23 Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (“To

24 establish liability for a conspiracy in a § 1983 case, a plaintiff must

25 demonstrate the existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate

26 constitutional rights.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see,

27 e.g., cross-examination of Nigro 11/16 p.m. and Hernandez 11/16 a.m; see also

28 testimony of Anderson, 11/24 a.m. regarding the OCDA working with the

13793623.1

- 20 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 OPD re the injunction.

2

a. The testimony of DDA Hernandez and Det. Nigro shows that OPD and

3 OCDA ex plicitly agreed to co llaborate in seeking a gang injunction against OVC

4 and enforcing that injunction against Plaintiffs.

5

i. Det. Nigro and DDA Hernandez tes

tified that OPD worked

6

collaboratively with the OCDA offi ce to provide documentation that

7

they requested for the State Action. (11/17 p.m. RT 43:15-24; 45:22-

8

47:4; 47:14-48:1; 70:22-71:13; 11/16 a.m. RT 29:6-30:24.) Throughout

9

this process, OPD and OC DA were in cl ose contact as to exactly what

10

was needed for the State Action. (11/17 p.m. RT 41:2-10.)

11

ii. At the time OCDA sought to dism iss Plaintiffs from the State Action,

12

OPD and OCDA specifically discussed whether the injunction could be

13

enforced against indi viduals who had been dism issed. (11/17 p.m . RT

14

81:3-83:4; 11/18 a.m. RT 47:12-48:2.)

15

iii. Even beyond its role in obtaining th e underlying order, OPD played an

16

active and necessary role in enforcin g the Order against Plaintiffs. It

17

was prim arily OPD who identified new indivi duals who should be

18

served with the permanent Order against OVC. (11/18 a.m. RT 22:1-4.)

19

Det. Nigro’s testimony establishes that for each i ndividual who was

20

dismissed from the State action but subsequentl y served with the

21

Order, OPD gathered and review ed his or her documentation and

22

submitted it to OCDA as a reco mmendation that the individual be

23

served with the Order. (11/18 a.m. RT 26:6-14, 30:12-18.)

24

iv. OPD makes the threshold de cision ab out enforcement of the Order.

25

Individual OPD officers retain discretion whether to effect an arrest for

26

a violation of the Injunction; OPD officers do not have t o consult

27

OCDA before they make an arrest fo r a violation of the Orde r. (11/18

28

13793623.1

- 21 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

a.m. RT 32:21-33:3.)

2

b. Further, the weight of the evidence shows that the constitutional

3 violations were the result of a “municipal policy or custom" of the OPD. Detective

4 Nigro testified as to the policies established by OPD (in some instances

5 independently, and in others after consultation with the OCDA) for subjecting the

6 Plaintiffs to the Order. (Plaintiffs' Reply, page 24 n. 19; e.g., 11/17 p.m. RT 83:4-

7 21, 83:24-84:1, 84:8-13; 11/18 a.m. RT 4:20-23, 5:2-15, 8:18-9:20, 19:1-5, 22:1-4,

8 22:5-24, 25:5-9, 26:6-21, 27:5-12, 28:17-29:8, 29:19-30:4, 30:12-31:1, 32:21-

9 33:3.)

10

Conclusions of Law

11 1. As an initial matter, there is federal question subject matter over the

12 Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim and supplemental jurisdiction over their state

13 constitutional claim.

14 2. Plaintiffs do not have to exhaust to pursue their Section 1983

15 claims. See Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 507 (1982); see also Outdoor

16 Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007).

17 3. The Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient support for their argument that

18 the service of the state court permanent injunction order places them in

19 custody for purposes of a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiffs’ habeas corpus

20 claims fails as it is not sufficiently supported.

21 4. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply in this case. The doctrine is

22 confined to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by

23 state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced

24 and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil

25 Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The Plaintiffs did

26 not lose in state court, but rather were dismissed by the Defendants and no adverse

27 judgment was entered against them. Additionally, the Plaintiffs do not ask the

28 Court to review and reject the state court judgment; they ask the Court to prevent

13793623.1

- 22 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 its enforcement. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 2004).

2 5. The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, does not apply in this

3 case because Section 1983 claims are authorized exceptions to this Act. See

4 Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972).

5 6. The abstention doctrine established by Colorado River Water

6 Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) does not apply in

7 this case because there is no ongoing state proceeding that is parallel to this

8 federal case.

9 7. The Court also finds that the Younger abstention doctrine does not bar

10 this action. The requirements for Younger abstention are not met. There is no

11 on-going state-initiated proceeding and the federal court action here would

12 not enjoin the state court proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so.

13 In other words, this federal action would not interfere with the state

14 proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves. Green v. City of Tucson, 255

15 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d

16 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41

17 (1971)).

18

a. Because the Plaintiffs are not parties to the state court’s injunction, it

19 is not the equivalent of a pending state court action for purposes of Younger. See

20 Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., Inc.,142 F.3d 326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998).

21 8. There is no reason that the application of injunctions to non-parties

22 should be categorically exempted from due process scrutiny. In certain

23 circumstances, due process prevents injunctions from being entered against

24 non-parties without a prior hearing on whether they are acting in concert or

25 participation with the defendants. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

26 Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Here, Defendants' enforcement of

27 the Order against Plaintiffs based on their purported status as gang members

28 is akin to Defendants attempting to treat Plaintiffs as if they were named in

13793623.1

- 23 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 the Order.

2 9. People ex rel. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th 31 (2007),

3 People ex Rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090 (1997), and People v.

4 Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (2001) are inapposite. None of these cases,

5 nor the federal cases on which they rely, addresses whether a Court should apply

6 a Mathews- type analysis to claims such as those brought by Plaintiffs here, and

7 none of these cases holds that a Mathews-type analysis would result in a decision

8 in favor of defendants if presented with an injunction similar to the Order at issue

9 here.

10 10. The inquiry pursuant to Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976),

11 including the evidence presented at tr ial, provi des solid support for the

12 equitable relief sought by the Plaintiffs.

13

a. By subjecting Plaintiffs to the Order, Defendants have imposed a

14 significant restraint on their liberties. See supra, Finding of Fact ¶¶ 21b, c, d; see

15 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954) (the “liberty” protected by the Due

16 Process Clause “extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to

17 pursue”); Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 2007); People v.

18 Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1236, 1255-1256 (2001) (noting that because a gang

19 injunction restricts lawful, commonplace activity, it is an extraordinary remedy and

20 holding that it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence).

21

b. Defendants determination as to who was an “active participant” was

22 fact-intensive, based on one-sided and untested evidence and requiring judgmental

23 questions not determined by objective measures. A determination such as this one

24 that is not “susceptible of reasonably precise measurement by external standards”

25 poses a high risk of error (see Findings of Fact ¶¶ 21a, 22) of the sort that weighs

26 strongly in favor of higher procedural protections. Chalkboard, 902 F.2d at 1381;

27 see also Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 8 (1991); cf. Mitchell v. W. T. Grant

28 Co., 416 U.S. 600, 609 (1974) (no hearing necessary for issue involving “ordinarily

13793623.1

- 24 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1 uncomplicated matters that lend themselves to documentary proof”).

2

c. The Defendants’ unilateral determination lacked the procedural

3 protections that characterize due process and would lessen the risk of error, such as:

4

i. Notice of and access to evidence, Mathews, 424 U.S. at 345-46;

5

American-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1069 (9th

6

Cir. 1995);

7

ii. Opportunity to confront witnesses, American-Arab Anti-Discrim.

8

Comm., 70 F.3d at 1069;

9

iii. A neutral decision-maker. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533

10

(2004; Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction

11

Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993); Doe v.

12

Gallinot, 657 F.2d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 1981); cf. Prieto- Romero v.

13

Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008).

14

d. The government has no legitimate interest in refusing to provide a pre-

15 deprivation hearing. See Finding of Fact ¶ 23. Haygood, 769 F.2d at 1356.

16 11. The Plaintiffs met their burden of showing entitlement to injunctive relief,

17 demonstrating (1) that they have suffered irreparable injury; (2) that remedies,

18 available at law are inadequate; (3) that the balance of hardships between

19 Plaintiffs and Defendants warrant a remedy in equity; (4) and that the public

20 interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v.

21 MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 392 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 65.

22

Declaratory Relief Order

23 As to the First Claim and Second Claim against the Defendants, the court enters

24 judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor and declares that by subjecting Plaintiffs and

25 those similarly situated, or causing them to be subjected, to the enforcement of

26 the Order, Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of their

27 constitutionally protected liberty or property interests without adequate

28 procedural protections.

13793623.1

- 25 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

1

Permanent Injunction Order

2 For the reasons set forth above, the court issues an injunction barring Defendants

3 from enforcing the Order against the Plaintiffs.

4

5 Dated: 5-10-11

6

Hon.

United 7

_______________________________ Valerie Baker Fairbank States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13793623.1

- 26 -

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-CASE NO. SACV-09-1090 VBF(RNBx)

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9 MANUEL VASQUEZ, et al.,

10

Plaintiff-Petitioners,

11

vs.

12

TONY RACKAUCKAS, et al.,

13

Defendant-Respondents.

14

15

16

17

) Case No: SACV09-1090 VBF(RNBx)
)
) The Honorable Valerie B. Fairbank
) )
) x[PxRxxOxPxxOxSxExDxx] FINDINGS OF FACT ) SUPPORTING RULING RE: ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
)
) ) ) ) ) ) )

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

1

x[PxxRxOxxPxOxSxExxDx] FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF

2 THE COURT’S RULING RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

3

FEES

4

1. Plaintiffs are prevailing parties under federal law and are entitled to

5 fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. Following trial, this Court entered

6 an enforceable judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on their Section 1983 claim and Plaintiffs

7 obtained substantially all the relief they sought, as the Court issued a declaratory

8 judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights and enjoined

9 Defendants from enforcing the Order for Permanent Injunction against “Orange

10 Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang,” dated May 14, 2009, in People v. Orange

11 County Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et. al., Orange County Superior

12 Court, 30-2009 00118739, against Plaintiffs. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103,

13 111 (1992) (plaintiff qualifies as “prevailing party” where they “obtain an

14 enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought”); see also

15 Barrios v. California Interscholastic Fed’n, 277 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2002) .

16

2. Plaintiffs are also the prevailing parties under California law and are

17 entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

18 Section 1021.5. Under C.C.P. § 1021.5, courts apply a multi-prong test to assess

19 whether a party should be awarded fees. A party will be deemed “prevailing” if

20 the action resulted “in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public

21 interest,” by showing that, as a result of the action, “(a) a significant benefit,

22 whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a

23 large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private

24 enforcement . . . , are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) fees should

25 not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.” Adoption of

26 Joshua S., 42 Cal. 4th 945, 952, n.2 (2008) (quoting C.C.P. § 1021.5). Here, as set

27 forth above, Plaintiffs obtained substantially the relief they sought in the form of a

28 permanent injunction against Defendants. Also, the action enforced the right to

2

1 procedural due process, among the most central protections against arbitrary

2 government restriction of liberties; the litigation conferred a significant benefit on

3 the public as a whole by protecting the right to due process; and given that

4 Plaintiffs neither sought nor will receive monetary damages in this case, Plaintiffs

5 have no financial interest in the relief they have achieved.

6

3. The Court finds that the ACLU/SC and MTO have demonstrated that

7 the fees and costs they sought were reasonable and necessary to their successful

8 litigation of this matter. To support the lodestar, Plaintiffs submitted the

9 declarations of attorneys Peter Bibring, Joseph Ybarra, Carol Sobel, Peter

10 Afrasiabi, Anne Richardson, James Gilliam, and Douglas E. Mirell. These

11 declarations and exhibits providing awards in other cases in the Central District

12 legal market establish that the rates sought and approved are within the range of

13 reasonable market rates for attorneys of comparable skill, experience and

14 reputation. Moreover, the Court notes that Defendants did not submit any

15 admissible evidence to contradict the reasonableness of the rates sought for the

16 lawyers and paralegals.

17

4. The declarations and briefs submitted by Plaintiffs explained in detail

18 the various tasks counsel performed over the course of this litigation as well as the

19 various ways Plaintiffs’ counsel exercised billing judgment. Overall, Plaintiffs

20 reduced their total lodestar by approximately 18% to arrive at the amount of fees

21 they sought in their motion. In addition, detailed contemporaneous time records

22 were attached to the declarations of Peter Bibring and Joseph Ybarra as exhibits.

23

5. This Court has considered and rejected Defendants’ arguments as to

24 the reasonableness of Plaintiffs' fees, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' briefs.

25 This was a complicated case raising novel issues that was litigated vigorously by

26 Defendants through discovery and trial. Plaintiffs’ success was not limited: they

27 prevailed entirely on two claims and in all meaningful respects obtained the full

28 relief they sought for themselves and the Plaintiff class. Further, the habeas

3

1 corpus claim, on which Plaintiffs did not prevail on jurisdictional grounds, raised

2 the identical due process issue on the merits as the claims on which they did

3 prevail and obtained full relief. To the extent that Defendants have raised

4 objections that Plaintiffs’ request reflects duplicative time and unnecessary or

5 unreasonable labor expended, their objections are unfounded or adequately

6 addressed by Plaintiffs’ own cuts to the fees they seek. This Court has reviewed

7 the billing records and found that, with the exception of intern time, the hours

8 spent by Plaintiffs’ attorneys and paralegals for which they seek compensation are

9 reasonable given the duration, complexity and difficulty of the case; the vigor with

10 which Defendants litigated; and the extent of the relief obtained.

11

6. However, the Court also finds that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently

12 justify the reasonableness of the time spent by law student interns on this matter,

13 and thus is denying fees for time spent by law student interns.

14

7. Based on review of the evidence Plaintiffs submitted, the billing

15 judgment Plaintiffs’ counsel exercised, and the Court’s detailed knowledge of all

16 proceedings in this matter, the following rates and time are found reasonable:

17

18

a. ACLU Attorney Fees Through Judgment - May 10, 2011

19 Name
20 21 Hector O. Villagra
Belinda Escobosa 22 Helzer

Year Graduated 1994 2000

23 Peter Bibring

2002

24 Linda Dominic Ashe Paralegal

25 Christian Lebano TOTAL

Paralegal

26

Rate
$600 $525
$490 $200 $200

Hours
560.0 1526.1
894.6 431.7 78.4 3,490.8

Amount
$336,000.00 $801,202.50
$438.354.00 $86,338.50 $15,680.00 $1,677,575.00

27 ///

28

4

1

b. ACLU Attorneys’ Fees Post Judgment

2 Name

3

4

Belinda Escobosa Helzer

5 Peter Bibring

6 Christian Lebano
7 Maria Esquivel 8 TOTAL

Year Graduated 2000
2002 Paralegal Paralegal

Rate
$525
$490 $200 $165

Hours
28.3
90.10 30.50 12.90 161.8

Amount
$14,857.50
$41,100.50 $6,100.00 $2,128.50 $64,186.50

9

c. MTO’s Attorneys’ Fees Through Judgment - May 10, 2011

10 Name
11

Year

Rate

Graduated

Hours

Amount

12 Joseph J. Ybarra
13 Jacob A. Kreilkamp 14 Laura D. Smolowe
Marina A. Torres 15 Sarala V. Nagala 16 Sonia Arteaga

2001 2003 2006 2008 2008 Paralegal

$550 $505 $460 $385 $385 $200

240.0 709.9 240.0 426.7 209.8 238.0

$132,000.00 $358,499.50 $110,400.00 $164,279.50 $80,773.00 $47,600.00

17 Raphael Sepulveda Paralegal $210

154.3

$32,403.00

18 Patrick Justesen

ALS

$250

15.7

$3,925.00

19 TOTAL

2,234.4 $929,880.00

20 d. MTO Attorneys’ Fees Post Judgment
21

22 Name
23 Joseph J. Ybarra
24 Jacob A. Kreilkamp
25 Laura D. Smolowe 26 Sarala V. Nagala
27 TOTAL

Year Graduated 2001 2003 2006 2008

Rate
$550 $505 $460 $385

Hours
76.1 1.6 0.9 2.7 81.3

Amount
$41,855.00 $808.00 $414.00 $1,039.50 $44,116.50

28

5

1

4. Under California law, the Plaintiffs are also entitled to a multiplier of

2 attorneys’ fees incurred before judgment, which was entered in this case on May

3 10, 2011. This case raised complex and novel issues, both in the jurisdictional

4 questions regarding abstention and in the core constitutional question of what

5 process is due individuals before they can be subjected to a gang injunction that

6 precludes them from engaging in otherwise lawful activities. Given the novel and

7 uneven state of the law in cases involving gang injunctions in state court,

8 Plaintiffs’ success was far from guaranteed at the outset, and their result was

9 exceptional. Not only were Plaintiffs unable to advance any fees or cover any of

10 the out-of-pocket expenses to support this lawsuit (which included expert witness

11 fees and substantial trial expenses), but Defendants also mounted a tenacious

12 defense requiring Plaintiffs’ legal team to expend significant time litigating this

13 case (both increasing the contingency risk and precluding plaintiffs’ counsel from

14 taking other work, another factor warranting enhancement of the fees). The

15 enormous time required and the substantial risk that no fees would be recovered

16 justify a contingency enhancement, “to bring the financial incentives” for taking

17 such a case into line with work for fee-paying clients.” Ketchum v. Moses, 24

18 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (2001). An additional justification for enhancement is that the

19 important result and the complete relief obtained in part reflects a level of skill of

20 Plaintiffs’ counsel not captured by market rates, which are based primarily on

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

6

1 counsel’s year of graduation. Accordingly, the Court finds that a 1.2 multiplier is

2 appropriate in this case. Applying this multiplier to fees incurred before judgment,

3 but not after judgment, the total fee award is $3,237,249.00

4

5 Date: __7_-_2__8_-_1_1__ 6

___________________________________ The Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank U.S. District Court, Central District of California

7

8 Respectfully submitted,

9 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

10 s/Belinda Escobosa Helzer
11 Belinda Escobosa Helzer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 
 Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 1 of 86 Page ID #:22191
FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOV 29 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

MANUEL VASQUEZ; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

No. 11-55795
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana
MANDATE RECEIVED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
11/29/2013
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY: ________D_L_M_________ DEPUTY

MANUEL VASQUEZ; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellant,

No. 11-55876
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 2 of 86 Page ID #:22192
and
TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

MANUEL VASQUEZ; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

No. 11-56126
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana

MANUEL VASQUEZ; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellant,

No. 11-56166
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 3 of 86 Page ID #:22193
and TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
The judgment of this Court, entered November 05, 2013, takes effect this date.
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Costs are taxed against the appellant in the amount of $783.70.
FOR THE COURT: Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of Court Eliza Lau Deputy Clerk

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 4 of 86 Page ID #:22194

2

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

MANUEL VASQUEZ; MIGUEL BERNAL LARA; GABRIEL BASTIDA; RANDY BASTIDA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.

No. 11-56126
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01090-
VBF-RNB

TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 5 of 86 Page ID #:22195

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

3

MANUEL VASQUEZ; MIGUEL BERNAL LARA; GABRIEL BASTIDA; RANDY BASTIDA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.

No. 11-56166
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01090-
VBF-RNB

ROBERT GUSTAFSON, Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant,

OPINION

and

TONY RACKAUCKAS, Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 8, 2013—Pasadena, California
Filed November 5, 2013
Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Richard C. Tallman, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Berzon; Concurrence by Judge Tallman

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 6 of 86 Page ID #:22196

4

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order granting declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs in two class actions which challenged a state court default judgment and injunction obtained by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, on behalf of the State of California, against the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang and its individual members and associates in a state court action to abate gang activity under California’s general public nuisance statutes.
The panel first rejected appellees’ contention that the district court should have dismissed the suit under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or under various comity and federalism doctrines.
The panel held that plaintiffs’ claim under the procedural due process clause of the California Constitution against defendant Rackauckas, sued in his official capacity as the head of Orange County District Attorney’s Office, was barred by Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Alderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). The panel therefore reversed the district court’s judgment as to that claim.
The panel held that the scope of the state court injunction was extraordinarily broad, interfering with a wide swath of plaintiffs’ protected liberty interests, including: family and
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 7 of 86 Page ID #:22197

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

5

social relationships; educational and professional opportunities; freedom of movement; and all manner of participation in civic life. The panel held that in light of those interests, some adequate process to determine gang membership was constitutionally required. The panel held that had defendants not voluntarily dismissed the individual plaintiffs from the state court lawsuit before obtaining a default judgment against the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, that process would have been provided. Because, however, defendants engineered that dismissal, there could not be enforcement against the individual plaintiffs without some alternative adequate process. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s issuance of declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the state court order against the plaintiffs.

In interpreting the district court’s injunction, the panel held that if defendants propose a procedure constitutionally sufficient to determine which members of the plaintiff class are members of Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang against whom the Order may be enforced, the district court will consider modifying the federal injunction.

Addressing the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in favor of plaintiffs, the panel held that there were “no special circumstances” that made the fee award unjust. The panel held, however, that because defendant Rackauckas was not subject to equitable remedies for violations of state law in this case, it was possible that there was some difference in the amount of the fee award that could be applied to him. The panel left it to the district court in the first instance to determine whether there was some portion of the fee award for which defendant Rackauckas was not responsible.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 8 of 86 Page ID #:22198

6

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

Concurring, Judge Tallman wrote separately to more thoroughly describe the backdrop of the anti-gang injunction at issue and to reiterate why the panel’s holding was confined to the unique procedural and factual record in this case.

COUNSEL
S. Frank Harrell (argued), Norman J. Watkins, and Melissa D. Culp, Lynberg & Watkins, Orange, California, for DefendantAppellant Tony Rackauckas.
Wayne W. Winthers (argued), Senior Assistant City Attorney; and David A. De Berry, City Attorney, Orange, California, for Defendant-Appellant Robert Gustafson.
Peter Bibring (argued) and Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Santa Ana, California; Joseph J. Ybarra, Jacob S. Kreilkamp, and Laura D. Smolowe, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney; Alex G. Tse, Chief Attorney, Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division; and Jana J. Clark, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae City and County of San Francisco.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney; Mary Clare Molidor, Deputy Chief, Criminal & Special Litigation Branch; Anne C. Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney; Kelly Huynh and Jeanne Kim, Deputy City Attorneys, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 9 of 86 Page ID #:22199

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

7

Matthew Sloan, Matthew Donald Umhofer, and Christina Lincoln, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Orange County Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and California Public Defenders Association.

OPINION
BERZON, Circuit Judge:
Since at least 1987, California prosecutors have brought public nuisance actions in state court to curtail the activities of street gangs. See Matthew Mickle Werdegar, Note, Enjoining the Constitution: The Use of Public Nuisance Abatement Injunctions Against Urban Street Gangs, 51 Stan. L. Rev. 409, 414 (1999). The scope of this effort has been broad. According to amicus curiae Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, that City, for example, has obtained fortyfour civil injunctions against seventy-two street gangs in the past two decades. Typically, the injunctions forbid members of the enjoined gang from engaging in a broad swath of legal and illegal activities, individually and with others, in certain areas.
Our question concerns not the substance of such orders but the procedures constitutionally required before individuals denied the opportunity to defend against imposition of the order against them can be subjected to it. Although California courts have grappled for more than twenty-five years with various substantive and procedural issues posed by anti-gang injunctions, no court — either state or federal — has previously addressed the particular due process issue presented here.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 10 of 86 Page ID #:22200

8

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

The district court approached this case with the utmost care, first denying a preliminary injunction and then, after full discovery, presiding over an eleven-day bench trial. In a comprehensive opinion, the district court concluded that (1) the constitutional issue should be decided, as no applicable abstention doctrine justified declining to do so; and (2) in the particular posture of this case, and given the breadth of the state court injunction at issue, due process requires that the plaintiff class members be afforded an adequate opportunity to contest whether they are active gang members before they are subjected to the injunction. We affirm the district court in principal part.

I.

California’s Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, see Cal. Penal Code §§ 186.20–.33, creates both a private and a public cause of action to “enjoin[], abate[], and prevent[]” a “nuisance” created by a “building or place used by members of a criminal street gang for the purpose of the commission” of various criminal offenses, see id. § 186.22a(a). The California Supreme Court has held that the STEP Act’s nuisance provision is not the exclusive “remed[y] . . . to abate criminal gang activities,” and that the “general public nuisance statutes,” namely California Code of Civil Procedure § 731 and California Civil Code §§ 3479–3480, provide independent authority for actions to enjoin a gang and its members from engaging in nuisance activity. See People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090, 1119 (1997).

This appeal has its origins in an action to abate gang activity under California’s general public nuisance statutes. Our analysis depends in significant part on the procedural

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 11 of 86 Page ID #:22201

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

9

history of the state case. We therefore describe the parties’ litigation decisions and the relevant state and federal orders in some detail.

In February 2009, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA), on behalf of the State of California, filed a public nuisance action in Orange County Superior Court against the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang (OVC) and 115 named individuals. The named individuals were alleged to be “members, agents, servants, employees,” or “persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” OVC. Of the 115 individual defendants, thirty-two were minors. OCDA further alleged that OVC’s “criminal and nuisance activities” included: “attempt[ed] murders, shootings, robberies, assaults, burglaries, felony gang graffiti and the illegal sale of controlled substances”; the use of private residential yards and commercial property as “escape routes” from law enforcement; and “vandalism, loitering, [and] drinking alcohol in public.” OCDA sought a permanent injunction restraining OVC and its members from engaging in a broad range of specified activities, lawful and unlawful, joint and individual, performed within a 3.78 square-mile area of the City of Orange. We discuss the scope of the requested relief — which, as we explain, the state court granted in principal part — in greater detail below.

Concurrently with its complaint, OCDA filed an application for a preliminary injunction against all defendants. In support, OCDA filed various exhibits, many under seal.1 The Superior Court also granted OCDA’s ex

1 The Superior Court granted orders prohibiting disclosure of sealed documents to unrepresented defendants.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 12 of 86 Page ID #:22202

10

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

parte application to serve the complaint on OVC, which had no known address, via a named defendant, Patrick DeHerrera. In addition, OCDA served “numerous individuals named in the state court complaint, including” the current PlaintiffsAppellees, with the complaint and the unsealed documents in support of the preliminary injunction.

Thirty-two individual defendants filed answers or general denials in the state court action or otherwise formally appeared. Some juvenile defendants and their parents also attempted to file pleadings or enter appearances but were not permitted to do so. The court declined to designate the defendants’ parents as guardians ad litem; without an appointed guardian, the juvenile defendants could not appear. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(a).

The Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction against OVC and the adult individual defendants who had not appeared. Soon thereafter, the court issued a preliminary injunction against eighteen adult defendants unrepresented by counsel, including Plaintiffs-Appellees Manuel Vasquez and Gabriel Bastida. The court denied OCDA’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to some adult defendants, and continued until May 7, 2009 the hearing as to certain other adult defendants and all juvenile defendants. The court also set a trial date of July 6, 2009.

In advance of the May 7 hearing, some of the adult defendants represented by counsel — including PlaintiffAppellee Miguel Lara — filed motions opposing the entry of a preliminary injunction against them as individuals. In support, they filed their own declarations; declarations of community members disputing the need for an injunction; and declarations of experts who averred that the OCDA’s

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 13 of 86 Page ID #:22203

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

11

evidence, including the Orange Police Department (“OPD”) declarations, was insufficient to establish that the named defendants were “active members” of OVC. Through counsel, those defendants also propounded written discovery requests on OCDA; the parties established a schedule for twenty depositions during May and June 2009.

At the May 7 hearing, the state court denied OCDA’s preliminary injunction motion as to all unrepresented juvenile defendants on the ground that any injunction would be immediately voidable by those defendants. The court also denied a preliminary injunction as to some adult and juvenile defendants represented by counsel, including PlaintiffAppellee Randy Bastida, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of those individuals’ “active” participation in the gang. Among the other defendants as to whom the court denied a preliminary injunction for lack of sufficient evidence was Patrick DeHerrera, the person on whom OCDA chose to serve the complaint on behalf of OVC as an entity. The court granted a preliminary injunction as to other defendants, including Plaintiff-Appellee Miguel Lara. As of May 7, OCDA had failed to obtain a preliminary injunction against at least twenty of the defendants originally named in the complaint.

Shortly thereafter, OCDA filed a request to dismiss from the case, without prejudice, sixty-two individual defendants, including the thirty-two adults and juveniles who had filed a general denial or an answer and all unrepresented juvenile defendants. OCDA did so because of the “aggressive effort on the[] part” of those individuals to defend themselves in court, and because of the concerns that the state court judge raised regarding entering a judgment against unrepresented juveniles. The court granted OCDA’s dismissal request.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 14 of 86 Page ID #:22204

12

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

OCDA then requested and obtained a default judgment, including a permanent injunction (the “Order”), against OVC as an entity, including OVC’s “members, participants, agents, associates, servants, employees, aiders, and abettors whose membership, participation, agency, association, service, employment, aid, or abetment is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical, and all persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” OVC. The Order names as parties all individual defendants who had not been voluntarily dismissed by OCDA and as to whom the Superior Court had granted a preliminary injunction.2 We attach a copy of the Order as Exhibit A.

The Order forbids the enjoined parties from engaging in a variety of activities in “any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view” within a 3.78 square mile area — the “Safety Zone” — comprising about sixteen percent of the City of Orange.3 The prohibited activities include both unlawful and otherwise lawful conduct, such as:

• “stand[ing], sit[ting], walk[ing], driv[ing], bicycl[ing],” or “gather[ing] or appear[ing]” with any other enjoined parties, including family members;

2 Among the defaulting defendants was Plaintiff-Appellee Gabriel Bastida, who later had the default judgment against him vacated, filed a general denial, and, as with the others who defended themselves in state court, was subsequently voluntarily dismissed by OCDA.
3 Except as noted below, see nn. 4–5, the Order included the same relief OCDA had originally requested.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 15 of 86 Page ID #:22205

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

13

• “confront[ing], intimidat[ing], annoy[ing], harass[ing], threat[ening], challeng[ing], provok[ing], assault[ing], or batter[ing]” anyone, or “remain[ing] in the presence of or assist[ing] anyone” the enjoined party knows to be performing such conduct;

• unlawfully using “any drug,” or “remain[ing] in the presence of or assist[ing] anyone [the enjoined party] know[s] is unlawfully under the influence of any drug”;

• “possess[ing],” “transport[ing],” or “sell[ing]” guns or various other weapons, or “remain[ing] in the presence” of such weapons;

• “us[ing], display[ing], or communicat[ing] by means of any words, phrases, physical gestures, hand signs, or symbols that [the enjoined party] know[s] describe, represent, or refer to the [OVC], or . . . remain[ing] in the presence of or assist[ing] anyone [the enjoined party] know[s]” is performing such conduct;

• “wear[ing], display[ing], exhibit[ing], or possess[ing] any clothes or accessories that [the enjoined party] know[s] . . . refer[s] to the [OVC] gang, including clothes or accessories that display, exhibit, or feature . . . the . . . word[] ‘Orange,’ . . . the color orange,4 or . . . remain[ing] in the presence of . . . anyone that [the enjoined party] know[s] is wearing” such clothing;

4 OCDA’s original request for injunctive relief included a provision also prohibiting enjoined parties from wearing tan, beige, black, or blue, but the Superior Court limited the prohibited color to orange.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 16 of 86 Page ID #:22206

14

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

• drinking alcohol; possessing an open container of alcohol; or knowingly remaining in the presence of a person drinking or possessing such an open container, without exception for a person eating or working in a restaurant;5

• for minors, being in a “public place, vacant lot, or business establishment” between 10pm and 5am unless: (1) accompanied by a parent, legal guardian, or responsible adult; (2) on an errand at the direction of a parent or guardian; (3) on a sidewalk in front of or adjacent to the minor’s dwelling; (4) in, or en route to or from, a “place of lawful entertainment, recreation, culture, or charity” during that place’s operating hours, or in or en route to or from lawful employment or volunteer activity; (5) en route to or from, or engaged in, “an official school, official religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of [one’s] rights under the First Amendment,” where such activity is “supervised or overseen by an adult person on behalf of” a civic organization; (6) responding to an emergency situation; or (7) “in a vehicle engaged in interstate travel”;

• for adults, being in a “public place, vacant lot, or business establishment” between 10pm and 5am unless: (1) on a sidewalk in front of or adjacent to the person’s dwelling; (2) in, or en route to or from, a “place of lawful entertainment, recreation, culture, or charity” during that

5 Unlike the other provisions, the prohibitions related to alcohol only extend to such conduct “in any public place” or “any place accessible to the public,” but not to such conduct carried out “in public view.” The Superior Court struck the “public view” language from the OCDA’s requested prohibitions on alcohol, concerned that such a broad provision would prohibit a person from consuming alcohol in his own home if adjacent to a window. The Superior Court did not so limit the reach of any of the other provisions, including the restrictions on association.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 17 of 86 Page ID #:22207

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

15

place’s operating hours, or in, or en route to or from, lawful employment or volunteer activity; (3) en route to or from, or engaged in, “an official school, official religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of [one’s] rights under the First Amendment”; (4) responding to an emergency situation; or (5) “in a vehicle engaged in interstate travel.”

As noted, the Order applies not only to the named parties, but also to OVC’s “members,” without regard to whether such individuals were acting on behalf of OVC or, except as specified in the Order, with other OVC members, when engaged in proscribed activities. The Order does not provide any procedures for the parties or the Superior Court to determine which, if any, unnamed parties were “members” of OVC and therefore subject to the Order’s terms. The Order has no expiration date.

A few weeks after default entry of judgment, the OPD, at OCDA’s instruction, began serving the Order not only on the individual defendants against whom the injunction had issued, but also on individuals originally named as defendants in the state court case but voluntarily dismissed by OCDA. By September 2009, OCDA and OPD had served at least forty-eight individuals who had been named in the nuisance suit against OVC but whom OCDA voluntarily dismissed.

Along with the Order, OCDA and OPD served the following “Notice”:

YOU ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT ON MAY 14, 2009, JUDGE KAZUHARU MAKINO SIGNED AN ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 18 of 86 Page ID #:22208

16

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

AGAINST THE ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE GANG, WHETHER OR NOT NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT . . . AND LATER DISMISSED FROM THE LAWSUIT . . . ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION. . . .

ALL PERSONS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 166(a)(4) FOR ANY WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION LISTED IN THE PERMANENT GANG INJUNCTION.

The Superior Court had no role in reviewing or approving the notice.

About four months after entry of the Order, four individuals on whom OCDA and OPD served the Order and Notice filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the heads of OCDA and OPD — District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and Chief of Police Robert Gustafson — in their official capacities (collectively “Orange”). Alleging that OCDA and OPD’s “dismiss-and-serve strategy” violated the procedural due process clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions, Plaintiffs sought a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Orange’s conduct and an injunction

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 19 of 86 Page ID #:22209

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

17

barring Orange from enforcing the Order against Plaintiffs “without first providing them with a full constitutionally[] adequate hearing.” Plaintiffs presented no challenge to the terms of the Order; they challenged only the adequacy of their opportunity to contest the application of the Order to them.

The four named Plaintiffs sought to represent two classes: (1) adults and minors “named as individual defendants” in the state case, “who appeared . . . in the Orange County Superior Court to defend themselves and were voluntarily dismissed by [OCDA],” and (2) minors “named as individual defendants” in the state case for whom no guardian ad litem was appointed and who were voluntarily dismissed by OCDA. The proposed class definitions excluded any individuals who were already being prosecuted for state criminal contempt proceedings for violating the Order.6

The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction; granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify both classes; and denied the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The district court then held an elevenday bench trial, hearing testimony from fourteen witnesses, receiving more than 100 exhibits, and personally touring the area of the City of Orange covered by the Order. The court concluded that “Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of their constitutionally protected liberty or property interests without adequate procedural protections.” The court also granted “an injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the Order against the Plaintiffs.” The court emphasized that it was “not instructing the state court as to

6 The record does not reflect whether, at the time Plaintiffs filed suit, OCDA had in fact commenced contempt proceedings against anyone not individually named in the Order.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 20 of 86 Page ID #:22210

18

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

the nature of any hearing. . . . [T]he Court’s order [is] directed to the Defendants, and not the state court.” (emphasis in the original).

Orange timely appealed to this court.

II.

Before turning to the merits of the due process claim, we address Orange’s contentions that under various comity and federalism doctrines, the district court should have dismissed this suit rather than deciding the issue raised and granting equitable relief.

A.

Orange maintains, first, that the suit should have been dismissed under the doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), limiting federal courts’ authority to enjoin ongoing state court proceedings in some instances. “In addressing Younger abstention issues, district courts must exercise jurisdiction except when specific legal standards are met, and may not exercise jurisdiction when those standards are met; there is no discretion vested in the district courts to do otherwise.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (alteration omitted). We review de novo a district court’s determination as to whether Younger abstention is warranted. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 982 n.19 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

As relevant here, “usually, federal plaintiffs who are not also parties to pending litigation in state court may proceed with their federal litigation” without being barred under

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 21 of 86 Page ID #:22211

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

19

Younger. Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), overruled on other grounds, Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2005). Only under “quite limited circumstances” may Younger “oust a district court of jurisdiction over a case where the plaintiff is not a party to an ongoing state proceeding.” Id. at 1100. Such circumstances are present only when a federal plaintiff’s interests are “so intertwined with those of the state court party that . . . interference with the state court proceeding is inevitable.” Id.

The district court properly declined to abstain under Younger. OCDA initially named Plaintiffs as parties in the Superior Court action but unilaterally dismissed them. OCDA did so precisely because of Plaintiffs’ “effort . . . to fight” — that is, to present a defense in state court. “Younger abstention cannot apply to one . . . who is a stranger to the state proceeding.” Id. at 1103 (quoting Gottfried v. Med. Planning Servs. Inc., 142 F.3d 326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998)). Orange made Plaintiffs “stranger[s]” to the state case by denying them an opportunity to be heard in state court on the question whether they were gang members. Id.

Moreover, as parties dismissed from the state case, Plaintiffs’ interests are not “intertwined” with those against whom the Order was issued, namely, OVC and the remaining, named defendants. Id. at 1100. The question Plaintiffs raise in this case — the adequacy of OCDA’s and OPD’s gangmembership determination — arose precisely because Plaintiffs were dismissed from the state court litigation and so could not defend against the imposition of an injunction on them in that litigation. Those covered by name by the Order did not attempt to present a defense and were not dismissed from the litigation. The circumstances and interests of those

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 22 of 86 Page ID #:22212

20

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

covered by name in the Order and the Plaintiffs are therefore entirely divergent as to the procedural issues raised here.

In addition, the relief sought in federal court would not disturb the validity of the Order as to any of the parties against whom it issued. Plaintiffs do not challenge the terms of the Order. There is therefore nothing about Plaintiffs’ interests that is currently “intertwined” with those of the named state defendants against whom the injunction issued.

B.

Orange’s next federalism-related contention is that Plaintiffs’ action is a “de facto appeal” of the Superior Court Order, barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). We review de novo the district court’s decision that Rooker-Feldman does not bar Plaintiffs’ action. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 896 (9th Cir. 2013).

As this court recently reiterated, the “de facto appeals” barred by Rooker-Feldman are those in which “a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court.” Id. at 897 (quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis added). “In contrast, if ‘a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or omission by an adverse party, RookerFeldman does not bar jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164) (emphasis added). “[E]ven if a plaintiff seeks relief from a state court judgment, such a suit is a forbidden de facto appeal only if the plaintiff also alleges a legal error by the state court.” Id.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 23 of 86 Page ID #:22213

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

21

Here, Plaintiffs “assert[] as a legal wrong” only OCDA and OPD’s allegedly unconstitutional enforcement of the Order. See id. at 897. They present no challenge to the terms of the Order, nor do they otherwise “allege[] a legal error” by the Superior Court. See id. Plaintiffs’ suit is therefore “not a forbidden de facto appeal” under Rooker-Feldman. See id.

C.

Orange also asserts that the district court should have abstained from hearing Plaintiffs’ case under more general principles of comity, equity, and federalism, unmoored from any particular abstention doctrine heretofore endorsed by the Supreme Court or our court. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision not to abstain under doctrines other than Younger. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 n.23 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); Green, 255 F.3d at 1092–93 & n.10.

Orange’s argument hinges on three out-of-circuit cases somewhat similar to this one but, in other respects, significantly different. In each of those cases, the federal court plaintiffs sought to enjoin prosecutors from enforcing state-court-issued injunctions against individuals not named in the state injunctions. In each case, the district court abstained from issuing the requested injunction, and the court of appeals affirmed the abstention. See Gottfried, 142 F.3d at 330–33; McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478, 487–89 (11th Cir. 1996); Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845, 850–52 (7th Cir. 1995).

In the case before us, the district court initially relied on these out-of-circuit authorities in denying Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. At that point, Plaintiffs were

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 24 of 86 Page ID #:22214

22

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

seeking an expansive injunction that would have required “judicial hearings[s],” with specific, prescribed procedural protections, before OPD and OCDA could enforce the Order against them. The district court concluded that such relief “would result . . . in an inappropriate invocation of the equity powers of the federal court,” because the remedy would require the involvement of a state judicial officer.

After Plaintiffs “clarified and narrowed” the injunctive relief sought, and after trial, the district court issued a permanent injunction against Orange, simply barring it “from enforcing the Order against the Plaintiffs.” In so doing, the court emphasized that it was “not instructing the state court as to the nature of any hearing.”

We need not address whether the district court would have abused its discretion in denying an injunction along the lines originally sought by Plaintiffs. Nor need we decide whether Gottfried, McKusick, and Hoover properly state the contours of an abstention doctrine that a district court might follow under circumstances not present here. We do hold that in the posture of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain from granting declaratory and injunctive relief after trial.

First, and most important, in the out-of-circuit cases, the plaintiffs challenged the terms of the state injunction. Not so here. Instead, Plaintiffs challenge only Orange’s policy of enforcing the Order against them, given that they were dismissed from the state case and so deprived of that

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 25 of 86 Page ID #:22215

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

23

opportunity to adjudicate their membership in OVC before being subjected to the Order.7

Second, the Plaintiffs here have neither sued the state judge who issued the relevant injunction, nor sought any relief from the state court. Instead, they seek to enjoin only the police and prosecutors whom the district court found, after trial, to have a policy of enforcing the Order against the same class of people dismissed from the state case. Cf. Gottfried, 142 F.3d at 328 (injunction sought against state judge); Hoover, 47 F.3d at 846, 851 (same).

Third, as we construe the district court’s order, see infra Section V, the federal relief granted does not pose an undue risk of “thrust[ing] the federal court into an unseemly, repetitive, quasi-systematic, supervisory role over administration of the state court injunction.” McKusick, 96 F.3d at 488. OCDA and OPD retain the broad discretion to enforce the Order, including against Plaintiffs, provided they provide the process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. See infra Section V.8 Nor was the relief the district court

7 In Gottfried, for example, the plaintiff’s requested injunction against enforcement of the state order was premised on her First Amendment challenge to the terms of the order, see 142 F.3d at 328, 330–31; in McKusick, the plaintiff argued that the state court injunction “authorize[d] arrests without probable cause,” see 96 F.3d at 487; and in Hoover, the plaintiff argued that the injunction was “vague and overbroad” and “infringe[d]” on First Amendment rights, see 47 F.3d at 846.
8 E.T. v. Cantil-Sakauye, 682 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 476 (2012), on which Orange relies heavily in its reply brief, is inapposite. In E.T., the dispositive ground for abstention was the specter of federal supervision of state judicial proceedings. The district court here made clear that its injunction does not run against state judges, state courts, or state court administrators.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 26 of 86 Page ID #:22216

24

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

granted based on “nebulous and speculative . . . fears” that the Order would be enforced against them. Hoover, 47 F.3d at 851. As we discuss in Section IV.A, the district court’s decision was based on particularized evidence introduced at trial that Orange has sought to enforce the state Order against the entirety of the Plaintiff class. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 710 (1977) (upholding an injunction against a state prosecution “when a genuine threat of prosecution exist[ed]”); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 475 (1974) (holding that “federal declaratory relief is not precluded when no state prosecution is pending and a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement”).

These distinctions matter because they eliminate the danger of an “affront to comity.” See Hoover, 47 F.3d at 851. Issuing equitable relief against OCDA and OPD does not create a conflict with any decision by the state court, nor does it preemptively decide any question the state court may be called upon to address in any pending proceeding of which we are aware. Cf. Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 980 n.14 (noting that Younger abstention is inappropriate where a federal claim is “wholly unrelated” “to the issues in [a] pending state proceeding”).

Orange nonetheless vigorously asserts that the federal court’s injunction leaves them “caught between conflicting orders.” That is simply not so. Orange fundamentally misreads the state court’s Order.

Nothing in that Order authorizes the police or district attorney to subject Plaintiffs to that Order, much less requires them to enforce the Order against the individual Plaintiffs in this case without further procedural protections. Indeed, the Order does not require that its provisions be enforced against

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 27 of 86 Page ID #:22217

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

25

anyone. And nothing in it states what procedures Orange should use to determine which unnamed parties are covered by the Order or against which such parties the Order should be enforced.9

People ex rel. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th 31 (2007), does not change our understanding of the state court Order. That case held that a trial court could enter an injunction against a gang and its “active members,” without any individuals being named as parties in the case. See id. at 39–43. The court reasoned that:

it is simply not practical to require [the State] to name Colonia[] Chiques gang members individually as defendants. There are approximately 1,000 members, and membership is continually changing. New members are joining the gang, while old members are leaving it or becoming inactive. If the gang could not be sued, [the State] would have to bring a new action for injunctive relief against each new member. The Legislature surely did not intend to impose such an onerous burden on officials

9 The Superior Court’s comments before granting OCDA’s motion for default judgment against OVC as an entity confirm that the Order is silent as to procedures for enforcement. The court explained that it viewed the issue whether OCDA might serve the Order on the now-federal-Plaintiffs “without some sort of judicial process” as an “enforcement issue” not before the court. When counsel for some of the current Plaintiffs requested “that if there were some circumstance where the District Attorney attempts to serve our clients, that they be subject to some judicial review of that,” the court responded: “That may be, but that’s nothing I need to decide now. Hopefully I’m not even going to hear that.”

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 28 of 86 Page ID #:22218

26

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

who are trying to mitigate California’s “state of crisis which has been caused by violent street gangs.”

Id. at 41 (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 186.21). Colonia Chiques supports Orange’s position that under California law, it was not required to name all of a gang’s active members as parties to obtain an injunction against the gang.10 But nothing in either Colonia Chiques or the state proceedings that preceded this case addressed the separate question of what process is due before a non-party individual can be subjected to an injunction as a purported member of an enjoined gang.

We note finally that the fact that the equitable relief sought by nonparties to a state-court proceeding bears some relationship to that state proceeding would not be a sufficient basis for a district court to abstain from deciding a federal constitutional question. As we explained in Green,

The principle that § 1983 plaintiffs need not exhaust available state judicial or administrative remedies necessarily means . . . that the mere availability of a state judicial proceeding that allows the opportunity to vindicate federal rights is insufficient to justify abstention under Younger. . . . There is no principled difference, with regard to the comity principles underlying Younger, between requiring a plaintiff to begin his or

10 Another California Court of Appeal has reached the opposite conclusion. See People ex rel. Reisig v. Broderick Boys, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1522 (2007). We express no view as to which California court is correct on this point.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 29 of 86 Page ID #:22219

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

27

her own state court or administrative proceeding when that is possible and requiring the plaintiff to intervene in someone else’s state court suit when that is possible. Either way, the requirement is inconsistent with the longstanding principle that § 1983 plaintiffs can ordinarily go forward in federal court if they choose to do so, and need not bring their cause to state court first.

Green, 255 F.3d at 1102. That rule is especially apt here, as any comity concerns are largely of OCDA’s own making.

In short, under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain from granting relief under general principles of comity and federalism.

D.

Orange’s final comity-related contention is that the district court erred under a line of cases originating with Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942), by “accepting jurisdiction” over Plaintiffs’ action, which included a claim for a declaratory judgment. The argument is twofold: first, that the district court was obliged under Brillhart to state its reasons for exercising its discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief but did not do so; second — and closely related — that even assuming the district court had adequately stated its reasons, its decision to

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 30 of 86 Page ID #:22220

28

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

entertain Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim was an abuse of discretion under Brillhart.11

Orange’s first contention relies on Dizol, 133 F.3d at 1225, which held that when “a party timely objects to [a district court’s] exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act,” and the district court fails to “make a sufficient record of its reasoning” to “exercise . . . jurisdiction,” “the case must be remanded to the district court to record its reasoning in a manner sufficient to permit the ‘proper application of the abuse of discretion standard on appellate review.’” Id. (quoting Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289 (1995)).12

11 We reject Plaintiffs’ contention that Orange forfeited its Brillhart argument by not raising it earlier. A Brillhart-based objection “may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” See Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). But Orange timely raised the issue in the district court by making the argument in its Objections to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Judgment and proposing specific language that the district court could include in declining to issue a declaratory judgment. The Brillhart issue was therefore “raised sufficiently for the [district] court to rule on it,” and so not forfeited. See Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006).
12 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Mortgage Guar. Ins. Corp., 642 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2011) clarified that the language in Dizol and related cases referring to a district court’s “exercise” or “accept[ance”] of “discretionary jurisdiction” “in an action seeking declaratory relief” is “imprecise.” Id. at 852 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is so because the Declaratory Judgment Act “does not confer jurisdiction, and therefore also does not afford the opportunity to decline it.” Id. at 853. The relevant discretion vested in a district court is whether “to provide a declaratory remedy pursuant to its otherwise proper subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute.” Id. (emphasis added).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 31 of 86 Page ID #:22221

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

29

Dizol’s bright-line remand rule “does not apply to claims that exist independent of the request for a declaration.” Scotts Co. LLC v. Seeds, Inc., 688 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “[A] claim is independent” in this context “if it would continue to exist if the request for a declaration simply dropped from the case.” Id. Orange acknowledges this standard but argues that it is not satisfied here, on the theory that Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief is predicated on an “initial declaration that Plaintiffs have suffered a violation of their constitutional rights.”

We disagree. Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief “is independent because it would be viable without the declaratory claim.” See id. at 1159. Scotts, for example, held that a claim for specific performance of a contract — which is, essentially, an injunction13 — was “independent” of a claim for declaratory relief “because it would be viable without the declaratory claim.” Scotts, 688 F.3d at 1159. Other circuits have similarly rejected the argument that a request for an injunction is “merely ‘ancillary’” to a request for declaratory relief. See Black Sea Inv., Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp., 204 F.3d 647, 652 (5th Cir. 2000); Chase Brexton Health Servs., Inc. v. Maryland, 411 F.3d 457, 466 (4th Cir. 2005).

Understood in light of Countrywide, then, Orange’s first contention is that the district court’s grant of declaratory relief, over Orange’s objection based on the Brillhart factors, and without reasoned consideration of that objection, requires us to vacate and remand.
13 See Ariz. Edison Co. v. S. Sierras Power Co., 17 F.2d 739, 740 (9th Cir. 1927); 4 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 1341, at 941 (5th ed. 1941).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 32 of 86 Page ID #:22222

30

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

Because Dizol’s discretionary rule does not apply, we proceed to consider Orange’s second Dizol-related argument, namely, that the district court abused its discretion in entertaining Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in light of the related state court proceedings. Because the declaratory judgment claim was “related” to the “independent nondeclaratory judgment claim” — for injunctive relief — we “evaluate[] under the Colorado River doctrine,” rather than under Brillhart, the district court’s discretionary decision to grant relief. See Scotts, 688 F.3d at 1158–59.

“Under Colorado River, considerations of ‘wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation,’ may justify a decision by the district court to stay federal proceedings pending the resolution of concurrent state court proceedings involving the same matter[.]” Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 867 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Here, as the district court recognized, “there is no ongoing state proceeding” that could “provide” Plaintiffs “relief” on their due process claim. Id. at 868. As there are no “concurrent” “state proceedings” that “will resolve” Plaintiffs’ claims, id. at 870, the Colorado River doctrine does not apply. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1993). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in carrying out its “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise . . . jurisdiction,” and to grant declaratory relief, rather than staying Plaintiffs’ action under Colorado River. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 982 n.17.14

14 Because we reject Orange’s Brillhart-related argument on the foregoing grounds, we need not address the parties’ dispute over whether Brillhart and its progeny set limits on a district court’s discretion to grant a declaration as to the parties’ rights under federal law where, as here, the

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 33 of 86 Page ID #:22223

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

31

III.

The final issue we must consider before addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ due process claim is a narrow one. Defendant Rackauckas, sued in his official capacity as the head of OCDA, argues that Plaintiffs’ claim against him under the procedural due process clause of the California Constitution is barred by Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). We agree.

“A federal court[]” may not “grant” injunctive “relief against state officials on the basis of state law,” when those officials are sued in their official capacity. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106; see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 473 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). For purposes of § 1983 liability, whether a California “county district attorney acts as a state” rather than local “official” depends on the particular acts challenged in the § 1983 suit. See Weiner v. San Diego Cnty., 210 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2000). A “California district attorney is a state officer when deciding whether to prosecute an individual,” and when “investigating and proceeding with criminal prosecutions.” Id. at 1030–31; accord Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750, 753–62 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiffs’ allegations — all of which attack OCDA’s policies for enforcing the state Order against Plaintiffs through criminal contempt proceedings — fall squarely within that category of state, rather than local, official action. Weiner, 210 F.3d at 1030–31. Given the particular official conduct at issue, Plaintiffs cannot seek injunctive relief in federal court against Rackauckas for alleged violations of the California Constitution. We accordingly reverse the district court’s

district court had federal question jurisdiction as opposed to diversity jurisdiction.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 34 of 86 Page ID #:22224

32

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

judgment against Rackauckas on Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief. See Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106; Weiner, 210 F.3d at 1030–31.

Pennhurst, of course, has no bearing on Rackauckas’s amenability to suit in federal court for alleged violations of federal law. The district court determined that Plaintiffs were entitled to relief under the federal Constitution before proceeding to address their claims under the California Constitution, and awarded the same declaratory and injunctive relief on each independent ground. Rackauckas’s state-law immunity argument does not impact our analysis of Plaintiffs’ federal due process claim or the corresponding relief granted, to which we turn.15

IV.

The district court’s grant of declaratory and injunctive relief was based on its conclusion that “by subjecting Plaintiffs and those similarly situated . . . to the enforcement of the Order,” Orange “deprived Plaintiffs and those similarly situated” of their “constitutionally protected liberty interests without adequate procedural protections.” Reviewing the factual findings underlying the district court’s analysis for clear error and the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the due process claim de novo, we affirm the district court. See Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1260; Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

“We analyze a procedural due process claim in two steps. The first asks whether there exists a liberty or property

15 We address in Section VI infra the relevance of the Pennhurst issue to the fee award.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 35 of 86 Page ID #:22225

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

33

interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.” United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1013 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 234 (2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

A.

As to the first step of the procedural due process analysis, we agree with the district court that the Order profoundly implicates liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause, including rights of free movement, association, and speech, and that Orange’s conduct interferes with those protected liberty interests of the Plaintiffs.

“Freedom of speech and the other freedoms encompassed by the First Amendment always have been viewed as fundamental components of the liberty safeguarded by the Due Process Clause.” First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 780 (1978). “[T]he freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is” also “part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53 (1999) (plurality opinion). The Constitution likewise guarantees the “fundamental right of free movement” to both adults and minors. See Nunez ex rel. Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 1997) (invalidating a juvenile curfew ordinance under strict scrutiny review). The Order places a heavy burden on the exercise of these protected liberty interests.16

16 Our task at the first prong of the procedural due process analysis is to determine whether “there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State,” see Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d at 1013

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 36 of 86 Page ID #:22226

34

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

As noted, the Order prohibits anyone subject to its terms from associating with any other enjoined parties — including family members — in “any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view” in the Safety Zone. The “Do Not Associate” prohibition extends to “stand[ing], sit[ting], walk[ing], driv[ing], bicycl[ing],” or “gather[ing] or appear[ing].” The Order also establishes curfews for both minors and adults, prohibiting nighttime presence in a “public place, vacant lot, or business establishment” unless an enumerated exception applies. These provisions directly interfere with an individual’s “fundamental right of free movement,” id., and an “individual’s decision to remain in a public place of his choice,” Morales, 527 U.S. at 54. Related terms of the Order that bar “remain[ing] in the presence” of other individuals engaged in various acts — such as possessing firearms or drinking alcohol — further affect these same liberty interests. Those terms restrict freedom of movement and use of public places because of the actions of others, over which one may have no control, and do so without regard to whether the individual engaging in the banned activities is an OVC gang member.

The Do Not Associate provision and other limitations on association have no exception for individuals to engage in First-Amendment protected “expressive” activity, such as attending religious services, participating in political demonstrations, or otherwise “associat[ing] with others in

(emphasis added), not whether the Order substantially violates the constitutional protections accorded such interests. The Order’s terms are thus relevant here only insofar as they implicate the constitutionally protected liberty interests of those subject to the injunction, which feeds into our next inquiry, see infra Section IV.B, namely what, if any, procedural protections the Due Process Clause requires Orange provide before subjecting individuals such as Plaintiffs to the Order’s terms.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 37 of 86 Page ID #:22227

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

35

pursuit of [the] wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends” “protected by the First Amendment.” See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984). The same provisions also burden the constitutionally protected freedom of “intimate association,” see id. at 618, by barring association with family members in public places such as schools, churches, parks, libraries, stores, and restaurants (and in some instances, at home), if in “public view,” see supra n.5.

The “Do Not Use Gang Hand Signs or Symbols” provision, in turn, restricts freedom of expression by banning the “use[ or] display . . . by means of any words, phrases, physical gestures, hand signs, or symbols” that an enjoined party “know[s] describe[s], represent[s], or refer[s] to the” OVC gang, or “remain[ing] in the presence” of individuals using such words or gestures.17 This proscription would, for example, ban a covered individual from referring to the OVC gang, or listening to someone else refer to the OVC gang, in the designated locations, while discussing this lawsuit or the state court Order. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382 (1992) (noting that “[c]ontent-based regulations are presumptively invalid” under the First Amendment); McCoy v. Stewart, 282 F.3d 626, 633 (9th Cir. 2002). Also possibly affecting freedom of expression is the prohibition on wearing orange clothing and clothing that “feature[s] . . . the . . . word[] ‘Orange.’” Cf. Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in & for Cnty. of Carson City, 303 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2002).

17 The district court also found that “individuals use the term ‘OVC’ to refer to the historical Cypress Street Barrio located within the Safety Zone, and thus use of the term ‘OVC’ may not be an indication of gang membership.”

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 38 of 86 Page ID #:22228

36

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

In sum, a host of the Order’s terms implicate constitutionally protected liberty interests.

Aside from the terms of the Order itself, Orange’s actions subjecting Plaintiffs to the Order also constitute further “interfere[nce]” with liberty interests triggering scrutiny under the Due Process Clause. See Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d at 1013. Although the Order did not name Plaintiffs individually, Orange subjected Plaintiffs to the Order; notified Plaintiffs they could face “CRIMINAL PROSECUTION” for violating the Order’s terms; and testified in this litigation to a “policy [of] arrest[ing], transport[ing], and book[ing] those Plaintiffs alleged to have violated the Order and hold[ing] them pending bond or arraignment, rather than citing and releasing them,” as well as a “policy of seeking increased bail amounts for violations of the Order.” OPD and OCDA’s policy gave Plaintiffs a choice between refraining from a wide variety of otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected activities, or going to jail, quite possibly for some time.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the district court found that some Plaintiffs have in fact refrained from exercising their rights, particularly their “right of free movement.” See Nunez, 114 F.3d at 944. Plaintiff Vasquez, “who has lived his entire life in the Safety Zone, has curtailed going to parks, stores, restaurants, and the mall, for fear of being arrested.” Vasquez “no longer goes anywhere in the injunction area with his brother, with whom he lives and who has also been served with the Order.” Plaintiff Lara “no longer goes with his family,” including his “twin brother, who also has been served with the Order,” “to their favorite restaurants, to the local pool where Mr. Lara learned to swim, to parks where the family previously picnicked, or to the City

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 39 of 86 Page ID #:22229

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

37

of Orange’s annual street fair.” The remaining named Plaintiffs — the Bastida brothers — no longer “drive through the injunction area together or visit family together, or attend family functions that are held outdoors, for fear of violating the Order.” “When their grandfather had a stroke and was taken to a hospital in the Safety Zone in the middle of the night, their mother was forced to decide whether to permit the brothers to visit the publicly accessible hospital, an act that would violate both the curfew and association provisions of the Order.”

The district court similarly found that Plaintiff Lara used to “participate[] in vigils, demonstrations, and protests within the injunction area, but ceased doing so after being served with the Order, for fear he would be violating its terms by confronting and challenging government policies and associating with individuals on the injunction list.” “Such persons include [his] twin brother, who also has been served with the Order.” The Bastida Plaintiffs likewise “refrained from participating in protests . . . out of fear of violating the Order[].”18

Because Orange’s unilateral decision to restrict Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected liberty interests constituted an “interfere[nce] . . . by the State,” see Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d at 1013, we turn to an examination of whether Orange was obligated to provide Plaintiffs with additional procedural protections.

18 We have reviewed the record and determined that none of the district court’s findings of fact, including these, is clearly erroneous. See Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 40 of 86 Page ID #:22230

38

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

B.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), provides the familiar framework for the second step of our analysis, namely “whether the procedures attendant upon [Orange’s] deprivation” of Plaintiffs’ liberty interests “were constitutionally sufficient.” See Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d at 1013. Mathews “directs us to examine:”

first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.

Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 1000 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35). In “balancing” the Mathews factors, we are mindful that “the requirements of due process are ‘flexible and call for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.’” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 224–25 (2005) (quoting Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972)).

The district court correctly determined that the Mathews factors “weigh clearly in favor” of the conclusion that Orange violated Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights by failing to provide any form of hearing before subjecting them to the Order.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 41 of 86 Page ID #:22231

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

39

1. It follows from our analysis of Plaintiffs’ liberty interests in Section IV.A that Plaintiffs’ “private interest[s]” are very strong. See Brittain, 451 F.3d at 1000. The scope of conduct covered by the Order is wide, intruding considerably on the daily lives of those subject to it. As the district court found after personally touring the Safety Zone, the geographical area covered by the Order encompasses “dense residential areas,” “several schools,” “at least four parks,” “the Chapman University campus and its surroundings,” “the historic downtown Orange Area . . . which includes a vibrant commercial district,” “government buildings and offices (including Orange City Hall, the police station, and the public library),” “a hospital,” and “hundreds of retail and commercial business, and hundreds of homes and apartments.” As the district court also correctly noted, for “individuals who have spent much of their lives living in and around the area,” the Order’s terms “impose[] significant restrictions on Plaintiffs’ liberty interests.”

Moreover, that the Order is permanent — it lacks an “expiration . . . or sunset date,”— compounds the deprivation. “[T]he possible length of wrongful deprivation . . . is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interests.” See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 341.

In sum, under the first Mathews factor, Plaintiffs’ interests are truly weighty.19

19 Orange is mistaken that the interests of “the residents of Orange who are constantly plagued by the activities of the OVC” are assessed under the “private interests” factor. The interests of the public, for whom OCDA advocates in its capacity as a representative of the People of California, are instead considered under the third Mathews prong, which addresses the “Government’s asserted interest, ‘including the function involved’ and the burdens the Government would face in providing greater

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 42 of 86 Page ID #:22232

40

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

2. Under California law, “[f]or the purposes of a gang abatement injunction,” “an active gang member is a person who participates in or acts in concert with” a gang, where “[t]he participation . . . [is] more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical.” People v. Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1236, 1258, 1261 (2001); see Broderick Boys, 149 Cal. App. 4th at 1517. California courts have held that under state law, the state has the burden of demonstrating active gang membership by “clear and convincing evidence,” rather than a lower “preponderance” standard, given “the importance of the interests affected by [such an] injunction.” Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th at 1256; see Broderick Boys, 149 Cal. App. 4th at 1517.

In applying the second Mathews factor, we address the fact-intensive nature of assessing whether an individual is an active gang member or participant; the adequacy of the procedures Orange used in making that determination; the value of additional procedural safeguards; and the sufficiency of post-deprivation remedies. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.

(a) Where a factual issue “depend[s] on [the] credibility of witnesses and assessment of conditions not subject to measurement,” and is not “susceptible of reasonably precise measurement by external standards,” “[t]he risk of error is considerable when such determinations are made after hearing only one side.” Chalkboard, Inc. v. Brandt, 902 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir. 1989). Determining whether an

process.” See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529–30 (2004) (plurality opinion) (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335) (declining to consider under the first Mathews prong an “immediate threat to the national security of the United States”); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 (noting that the third factor includes “societal costs” to providing pre-deprivation hearings).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 43 of 86 Page ID #:22233

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

41

individual is an active gang member presents a considerable risk of error. The informal structure of gangs, the often fleeting nature of gang membership, and the lack of objective criteria in making the assessment all heighten the need for careful factfinding.

Gangs are often “loose knit[ and] without structure.” Att’y Gen.’s Youth Gang Task Force, Dept. of Justice of the State of California, Report on Youth Gang Violence in California 3 (1981). The STEP Act so recognizes, codifying a definition of “criminal street gang” that includes groups “whether formal or informal.” Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(f).20

For our part, we have recognized that many “[g]angs . . . do not have by-laws, organizational minutes, or any other normal means of identification.” United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169–70 (9th Cir. 2000). California courts have also so noted. People v. Valdez, 58 Cal. App. 4th 494

20 Other states’ definitions of a “gang” for criminal and other purposes are similar in reaching informal groups. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-105 (“formal or informal”); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-23-101(1) (same); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 616(a)(1) (same); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 874.03(1) (same); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-15-3(2) (same); Idaho Code Ann. § 18-8502(1) (same); Iowa Code Ann. § 723A.1(2) (same); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6313(a) (same); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1404(A) (same); Minn. Stat. § 609.229(1) (same); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.421(1) (same); Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-402(1) (same); Nev. Stat. § 193.168(8) (“combination of persons, organized formally or informally”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-50.16(b) (“formal or informal”); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-06.201(3) (same); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.41(A) (same); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-8-230(2) (same); S.D. Codified Laws § 22-10A-1(1) (same); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-121(a)(1) (same); Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-802 (“group . . . operated formally or informally”); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-46.1 (“formal or informal”); Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030(12) (same); Wis. Stat. § 939.22(9) (same).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 44 of 86 Page ID #:22234

42

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

(1997), for example, concluded that many “gangs are not public and open organizations or associations like the YMCA or State Bar association, which have a clearly defined and ascertainable membership. Rather, gangs are more secretive, loosely defined associations of people, whose involvement runs the gamut from ‘wannabes’ to leaders. . . . [D]etermining whether someone is involved and the level of involvement is not a simple matter . . . .” Id. at 506–07. Likewise, Colonia Chiques noted that the gang there at issue had a membership that was “continually changing,” with “[n]ew members . . . joining the gang, [and] . . . old members . . . leaving it or becoming inactive.” 156 Cal. App. 4th at 41.21

At trial, Plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, James Vigil, professor of criminology at University of California, Irvine, and Malcolm Klein, professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, testified to these same fluid characteristics of gangs in general and OVC in particular. Both reported that “most gang members” eventually leave gangs, making it difficult to determine membership or participation at any single time based on a past report of an individual’s involvement in a gang. Klein also stated that OVC, based in a particular neighborhood in the City of

21 Social science literature confirms the fluid and often fleeting nature of gang membership. Most juveniles belong to gangs for “1 year or less.” Chris Melde et al., Identifying Correlates of Stable Gang Membership, 28 J. Contemp. Crim. Just. 482, 483 (2012); see also James C. Holwell, Menacing or Mimicking? Realities of Youth Gangs, 58 Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 39, 44 (Spring 2007) (“Studies in numerous localities show that more than half of young gang members stay in the gang for less than a year.”); see also Report on Youth Gang Violence in California 5 (“[M]embers . . . move in and out of the gang on the basis of their interest in gang functions.”).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 45 of 86 Page ID #:22235

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

43

Orange, was “one of the less cohesive gangs” which he had encountered in more than forty years studying gangs.

Based on the trial record, including the expert evidence, the district court determined that whether “an individual is an active participant of a criminal street gang is” a “multifactored, complex[,] and fact specific” inquiry. The district court also found that OVC membership would be “particularly difficult to determine . . . because gang members and nonmembers often grow up together in the same neighborhood and have social relationships and friendships unrelated to the gang.” Distinguishing an individual’s social association with a gang member on a familial or friendship — i.e. non-gang related — basis, from an association with the gang as an organization is therefore a nuanced task. The district court also noted, based on Professor Vigil’s testimony, that many “individuals who have grown up in the local neighborhood or who have family members in the gang may be deemed members of the gang without undergoing any kind of initiation.” It is therefore often unclear, the district court found, at what point a “person becomes a member or participant of a gang.” In light of the evidence before the district court, its findings regarding the “multi-factored, complex[,] and fact specific” nature of determining whether someone is an OVC gang member are not clearly erroneous. See Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262.

Moreover, the fact that the police observe an individual violate one of the Order’s terms is of little probative value in assessing whether that individual is in fact an OVC gang member. The Order prohibits a wide variety of otherwise legal, quotidian conduct not directly correlated with the nuisance and criminal activities that gave rise to the Order. Much of the behavior covered by the Order can occur outside

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 46 of 86 Page ID #:22236

44

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

the presence of any other individual even putatively covered by the Order.

In short, given the “wide variety of information [that] may be deemed relevant,” and the difficulty of “reasonably precise measurement” in assessing whether someone is an active gang member, “[t]he risk of error is considerable when such [a] determination[ is] made” without any participation by, or opportunity to provide evidence on behalf of, the individual served with the Order and, according to Orange, putatively covered by it. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343; Chalkboard, 902 F.2d at 1381.

(b) As to the procedures actually used to determine which individuals would be served with the Order and considered subject to it, the district court characterized those procedures as follows: “Defendants undertook a unilateral, fact-intensive determination, based on one-sided and untested evidence and requiring judgmental questions not determined by objective measures.” This characterization is well supported by the record.

Testimony by Deputy District Attorney Michael Hernandez, Assistant District Attorney John Anderson, Joel Nigro, and Aaron Drootin, established that Orange lacked clear standards for determining on whom to serve the Order. As the district court found, Hernandez, Nigro, and Drootin “repeatedly testified that they . . . had no fixed list or set criteria to determine whether an individual was an active participant of OVC.” Throughout trial, these witnesses noted that there was no “equation” to determine gang membership; no “bright line rule”; and “every situation can be different.” Their testimony indicates that OPD used inconsistent standards. Nigro, for instance, explained that OCDA did not

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 47 of 86 Page ID #:22237

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

45

provide OPD with an “explanation as to” the meaning of “active participant.” He believed, based on his “conversations with gang participants . . . [and] police officers and detectives” that “association can be enough for a person to be an active participant” of a gang. Detective Drootin, in contrast, testified that merely knowing an OVC member was insufficient to establish membership.

Orange argues on appeal that the Superior Court made adequate findings at the preliminary injunction stage regarding gang membership, and that the decision as to which individuals to treat as bound by the Order was based on those findings. The district court, as noted, concluded otherwise — that Orange carried out a “unilateral determination.” The district court’s determination was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.” See Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262.

First, the state court never made any findings of gang membership regarding juveniles who lacked a guardian ad litem. The state court denied a preliminary injunction as to those individuals, but Orange later served them with the Order nonetheless.

Second, Orange served the Order on a number of plaintiff class members as to whom the state court denied a preliminary injunction. Although Orange maintains that it had new evidence of gang membership not submitted to the state court as to all but one of these individuals, that representation only emphasizes that Orange’s coverage decisions were not determined by whether there had been a previous judicial indication as to coverage.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 48 of 86 Page ID #:22238

46

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

Finally, and most important, for those Plaintiffs as to whom the state court did make preliminary findings of gang membership, those findings were exactly what they purported to be — preliminary, not final. Such a preliminary finding “does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate” issue, see Cont’l Baking Co. v. Katz, 68 Cal. 2d 512, 528 (1968), namely whether there was “clear and convincing evidence” as to Plaintiffs’ status as active gang members, see Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th at 1256. There was ample testimony before the district court that some of the evidence of gang membership submitted to the district court was of questionable reliability. By dismissing them from the state court proceedings, OCDA deprived the Plaintiffs of an opportunity to take discovery from OCDA and the OPD officers who had submitted declarations in support of a permanent injunction against individual Plaintiffs. Determination of the ultimate accuracy of the state court’s preliminary findings was therefore — through no fault of the state court — entirely undermined by the very procedural tactic that gave rise to this lawsuit.

(c) “[I]n certain circumstances, a state can cure what would otherwise be an unconstitutional deprivation of ‘life, liberty or property’ by providing adequate postdeprivation remedies.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001). Assuming, without deciding, that the deprivation of liberty interests that Plaintiffs have suffered could conceivably have been remedied by some form of postdeprivation procedure, we conclude that Orange has provided no such adequate process.22

22 We proceed in this fashion because the parties have not briefed whether the “deprivations of liberty” at issue here fall into the “limited circumstances” in which “[p]ostdeprivation procedures may provide

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 49 of 86 Page ID #:22239

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

47

Orange contends that Plaintiffs had several opportunities to obtain relief once it provided notice of its intent to enforce the Order against them: (1) through a “removal process” administered by OCDA; (2) by intervening in the Superior Court proceedings, see Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th at 35–37, 42; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 387; (3) by moving to modify or dissolve the Order, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 533, and appealing from any order denying such a motion, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 904.1(a)(6); Iraheta v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 1514 n.6 (1999), or appealing from the grant of the Order, see id.; or (4) in criminal contempt proceedings if arrested for violating the Order. We address each possibility in turn.

(i) According to Orange, under OCDA’s self-designed “removal process,” a panel of two Senior Deputy District Attorneys from OCDA and a Probation Department representative may review an individual’s request to be removed from the ambit of the Order. This process is insufficient to provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy, for at least two reasons.

adequate due process.” See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 315 n.37 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132 (1990) (noting that “in situations where a predeprivation hearing is unduly burdensome in proportion to the liberty interest at stake . . . postdeprivation remedies may satisfy due process”); Bailey v. Pataki, 708 F.3d 391, 405 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 132) (“[W]here the State feasibly can provide a predeprivation hearing . . . it generally must do so regardless of the adequacy of a postdeprivation . . . remedy.”); Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 738 (holding postdeprivation remedies inadequate where a state officer “acted pursuant to some established procedure,” as opposed to in “random, unpredictable, and unauthorized ways”).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 50 of 86 Page ID #:22240

48

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

First, the district court did not clearly err in finding that “the precise nature of the process and the potential relief it offers remain unclear.” As the district court found, the only written information that exists concerning the procedure is a single-page document served on the named defendants at the outset of the Superior Court case.23 Orange acknowledged at trial that the exclusion process “had never been implemented with regard to OVC or any of the five other injunctions the OCDA had obtained.” Moreover, there is no indication in the record that Plaintiffs were again given notice of the removal process when they were served with the Order. As Plaintiffs

23 The notice served at the outset of the Superior Court case read: “Any defendant who has been named in and served with this lawsuit which seeks an injunction or subject to an injunction resulting from this lawsuit who believes he or she was erroneously included in the lawsuit or injunction may petition the [OCDA]’s Office for removal from the lawsuit or injunction. Upon notice from the defendant the [OCDA]’s office will hold a hearing to be presided over by a panel of two Senior Deputy District Attorneys not associated with the injunction action, and a representative from the Probation Department. At the hearing, the defendant may present evidence, if he or she chooses, to show that the defendant was never, or at present is not, an active participant in the named criminal street gang. The [OCDA] may present evidence to the contrary if there is any. If the panel determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was never, or at present is not, an active participant in the named criminal street gang, the [OCDA] will petition the assigned court to dismiss the defendant from the lawsuit or remove the defendant from the injunction. The findings of the hearing will be kept confidential. If a defendant is dismissed from the lawsuit or removed from the injunction pursuant to this provision and is subsequently found to be engaging in behavior indicative of active participation in a criminal street gang, then that defendant may be re-served with any injunction that results from this lawsuit and will be required to comply with all of its terms. This provision does not prevent the defendant from petitioning the assigned court at any time, to be dismissed from the lawsuit or removed from any injunction obtained as a result of the lawsuit, or exercising any other legal or equitable rights or remedies.”

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 51 of 86 Page ID #:22241

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

49

were dismissed from the Superior Court case and were not named in the resulting Order, it is not clear that the putative removal procedure applied to them.

Second, the removal process described suffers from essentially the same defects as the procedures Orange used unilaterally to determine against which nonparties to the state court lawsuit to enforce the Order. Most critically, the burden is on the petitioning individual to demonstrate that he or she is not an active gang participant, even though the State ordinarily has the burden of demonstrating active gang participation by “clear and convincing evidence.” Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th at 1256. No enunciated criteria govern the determination who is or is not a gang member even though, as discussed earlier, see supra Section IV.B.2(a), membership is a shifting and sometimes nebulous standard. Furthermore, there are no provisions requiring an explanation of the basis for the conclusion that the individual is a gang member, either before or at the hearing. So the alleged gang member is left in a factual vacuum, to prove a negative. Cf. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1069 (1995) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)) (“[F]airness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights.”).

(ii) Orange relies on Colonia Chiques for the proposition that Plaintiffs — as non-parties to the Superior Court case once dismissed — could have moved under California Code of Civil Procedure § 387 to intervene in that action on behalf of OVC. See Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th at 35–37, 42. Intervention in the state case is an inadequate postdeprivation remedy.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 52 of 86 Page ID #:22242

50

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

OCDA unilaterally dismissed Plaintiffs from the state case. The suggestion that Plaintiffs should have moved to intervene in an action from which they had just been dismissed has little merit. Having been dropped from the litigation, the Plaintiffs had no obligation to come back a second time to assert their interest in the matters at issue; their interest was evident, but they were excluded from the litigation precisely because of that. We stress once again, in this connection, that the procedural due process problems raised in this case are of Orange’s own creation. They stem from Orange’s decision to thwart Plaintiffs’ efforts to use the procedures available in the state court that — all parties agree — were constitutionally sufficient.

Moreover, there is no indication that Plaintiffs could have intervened as a matter of right. OCDA would undoubtedly have opposed any intervention motion, as it had just dismissed the Plaintiffs as unnecessary to the action. The Superior Court could have denied an opposed intervention motion. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 387; City of Malibu v. California Coastal Comm’n, 128 Cal. App. 4th 897, 902 (2005). It would have little choice but to do so with regard to the class of unrepresented juveniles; those individuals remained without a guardian ad litem, and the Superior Court had already declined to appoint guardians for them. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372. As to the rest of the plaintiff class, the contingent right to file an opposed motion to intervene, subject to discretionary denial, is not an adequate assurance of due process to meet constitutional standards.

(iii) A motion to modify or dissolve the Order is an inadequate post-deprivation procedure because Plaintiffs take no issue with the terms of the Order itself. Plaintiffs’ quarrel is only with Orange’s decision, without any judicial or

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 53 of 86 Page ID #:22243

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

51

administrative proceeding, to subject Plaintiffs to the Order. For the same reason, it is no answer to say that Plaintiffs could appeal from the denial of a motion to modify or dissolve the Order, or could appeal from the grant of the Order. Their contention is unrelated to any action of the Superior Court with regard to the Order.

Broderick Boys is not to the contrary. There, the court held that “without having to admit membership in the gang,” four men were “sufficiently aggrieved by” an anti-gang injunction that they had standing to move to set aside the injunction. 149 Cal. App. 4th at 1518. Broderick Boys establishes that Plaintiffs could have challenged the terms of the Order in state court, or, as in Broderick Boys, argued that the Order in its entirety was void for lack of proper notice. But nothing in Broderick Boys suggests that Plaintiffs could have litigated in state court the question presented in their federal action — namely, assuming the validity of the Order, whether the Order could be enforced against them.

(iv) Finally, post-arrest criminal contempt proceedings would not be adequate to provide “full relief” from the deprivation of being subjected to the Order. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 331.

In California, “[c]ontempt . . . may be punished in two ways”: in a civil proceeding, for which the maximum penalty is a fine and five days imprisonment, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1209, 1218, or in a criminal misdemeanor proceeding, see Cal. Penal Code §§ 166(a)(4), (10),24 for which the maximum

24 California Penal Code § 166(a)(4) criminalizes the “[w]illful disobedience of the terms as written of any process or court order.” Section 166(a)(10) criminalizes the “[w]illful disobedience of the terms

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 54 of 86 Page ID #:22244

52

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

penalty is six months imprisonment. See People v. Gonzalez, 12 Cal. 4th 804, 816 (1996). At trial, Orange testified to a policy of prosecuting violations of the Order under the latter provision, and of “arrest[ing], transport[ing,] and book[ing] [any individual] alleged to have violated the Order and hold[ing] them pending bond or arraignment.”

OCDA representatives also specified that OCDA has a policy of seeking “increase[d] bail” for violations of the Order, “to ensure that bail would be higher than it might otherwise be for a misdemeanor offense.” A person charged under the criminal contempt provision may spend up to thirty days in jail between arraignment and trial under California’s speedy trial statute. Cal. Penal Code § 1382(a)(3). Under Orange’s policy for enforcing the Order, then, Plaintiffs can expect to face considerable difficulties posting bail and will likely be forced to spend up to a month in jail before obtaining the opportunity to contest their gang membership in a contempt proceeding.

As noted, the Order binds OVC’s “members, agents, servants, employees,” or “persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” OVC. In that wording, the Order is not unlike many abortion buffer zone or labor picketing injunctions. See, e.g., Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 759 n.1 (1994) (order directed at anti-abortion organizations); In re Berry, 68 Cal. 2d 137, 141–42 (1968) (anti-picketing injunction). What is unique, however, is the combination of Orange’s enforcement policy — including the avowed policy of immediate arrest and a request for heightened bail — and

of an injunction that restrains the activities of a criminal street gang or any of its members.”

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 55 of 86 Page ID #:22245

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

53

the breadth and nature of the Order. Again, the Order proscribes a broad range of basic, daily activities by OVC’s members, and it proscribes such conduct without regard to whether the individual is engaged in that conduct in concert with, as a member or agent of, or with the intent to further the purposes of the gang.

In these respects, this case differs from other contexts in which an injunction runs against an organization and its members, and, we shall assume for present purposes, unnamed members are accorded sufficient process through the opportunity to defend criminal contempt accusations. The abortion and labor cases, for example, involve injunctions restricting a narrow range of conduct — e.g., demonstrating in a certain location or with a certain object. Engaging in those activities is likely to be highly correlated with whether an individual is in fact a member of the enjoined organization, which had engaged in similar activities. In contrast, the Order prohibits an enormous range of quotidian conduct that, on its face, is not indicative of an individual’s gang membership, or any other connection to the enjoined gang.

Moreover, the difference in the scope of the injunctions in these various contexts is relevant because “[t]he more important the interest” affected by state action, “and the greater the effect of its impairment, the greater the procedural safeguards the state must provide to satisfy due process.” Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1355–56 (9th Cir. 1985). Further, the lack of an inherent correlation between the enjoined activities and membership in the group covered by the Order exacerbates the already significant risk of error in identifying accurately the members of OVC.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 56 of 86 Page ID #:22246

54

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

Under the particular circumstances of this case, then, including the Order’s pervasive interference with Plaintiffs’ liberty interests and the lack of adequate pre-deprivation procedural safeguards, post-arrest contempt proceedings are insufficient to “cure . . . [the] unconstitutional deprivation of” liberty, including jail time, that would occur before a criminal contempt trial would be held. See Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 737.

3. At the final stage of the Mathews inquiry, we consider “the Government’s interest” “in providing (or not providing) specific procedures,” “including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335; Haygood, 769 F.2d at 1356. Here, “the operative question is not whether [Orange] has a significant interest in [combating gang violence] — no one doubts that [they] do[] — but rather whether [they] ha[ve] a significant interest in” failing to provide a pre-deprivation process through which an individual can challenge Orange’s allegations of his active gang membership. Humphries v. Cnty. of L.A., 554 F.3d 1170, 1194 (9th Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 447 (2010).

As the district court noted, Orange presented no evidence of “an administrative, fiscal or other substantial burden[] in providing . . . pre-deprivation safeguards.” In fact, OCDA Assistant District Attorney Anderson testified at trial that it was “standard procedure” in the five other state court proceedings in which OCDA previously sought anti-gang injunctions to name each defendant individually in the initial filing. Moreover, at the time OCDA chose to dismiss Plaintiffs from the Superior Court proceedings, OCDA had obtained preliminary injunctions against OVC as an entity,

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 57 of 86 Page ID #:22247

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

55

thereby satisfying any government interest in promptly obtaining relief against OVC itself.

Additionally, the record indicates that at least two jurisdictions in California — San Francisco and Oakland — regularly provide some form of pre-deprivation process for individuals in anti-gang injunction proceedings, rather than simply seeking injunctions against the gang as an entity and its unnamed members. We need not decide whether these jurisdictions’ procedures are constitutionally required as a matter of due process; we simply cite them as examples of procedures, in addition to the procedures OCDA followed in cases prior to this one, that cast further doubt on Orange’s claimed administrative burden in providing pre-deprivation protections of some kind.

There is no evidence in the record that further predeprivation procedures would reduce the efficacy of the injunction against OVC and its members. Orange’s expert testified that he had “no opinion on whether providing a hearing before subjecting somebody to an injunction would make a gang injunction more or less effective.”25

In sum, the district court properly concluded that Orange established no “administrative, fiscal or other substantial

25 Moreover, the governmental interests that have historically supported the enforcement of injunctions against nonparties to the underlying litigation do not exist here. See, e.g., Nat’l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the U.S. of Am. Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat’l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the U.S. of Am., Inc., 628 F.3d 837, 848–49 (7th Cir. 2010) (allowing enforcement of an injunction against nonparties who “aid[] or abet[] an enjoined party in violating an injunction” — or are “in ‘privity’ with[,]” “successors in interest to[,]” or are “otherwise ‘legally identified’ with the enjoined party”).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 58 of 86 Page ID #:22248

56

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

burden[] in providing” some procedure for Plaintiffs to challenge Orange’s gang membership determination before they were subjected to the terms of the Order. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335; Haygood, 769 F.2d at 1356.

4. All the Mathews factors, taken together, weigh decisively in favor of Plaintiffs. The scope of the Order is extraordinarily broad, interfering with a wide swath of Plaintiffs’ protected liberty interests, including: family and social relationships; educational and professional opportunities; freedom of movement; and all manner of participation in civic life. Given the fact-intensive nature of assessing gang membership, Orange’s procedures posed an unacceptably high risk of error. Additional procedural safeguards would have been of considerable value. In light of the significant private interests at stake, the proffered postdeprivation remedies, to the extent they were even available, were insufficient to provide Plaintiffs with full relief. Finally, Orange has not established any governmental interest justifying the failure to provide some measure of additional procedural safeguards before subjecting Plaintiffs to the Order. Given these considerations, the district court correctly concluded that Orange violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution.

Orange raised no challenge to the district court’s entry of an injunction other than to dispute the district court’s application of the Mathews factors. We therefore affirm the district court’s issuance of declaratory and injunctive relief in Plaintiffs’ favor.26

26 OPD does not separately challenge Plaintiffs’ entitlement to an injunction under the due process clause of the California Constitution — which provides greater procedural due process rights for private parties

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 59 of 86 Page ID #:22249

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

57

V.

For the first time in their reply brief, Orange argues that the district court injunction does not “describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.” Because we do not consider issues raised for the first time in reply briefs, we deem this late-raised argument forfeited. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1990).

We nonetheless provide some brief comments regarding our interpretation of the relatively terse federal court injunction, so as to guide the parties in any further proceedings. The district court’s injunction states simply that Orange is “barr[ed]” “from enforcing the Order against the Plaintiffs,” without providing any further indication of what actions, if any, Orange may take to enforce the Order while remaining in compliance with the federal injunction.

At oral argument in this court, Plaintiffs represented that under their interpretation of the federal injunction, Orange remains free to take any of the following actions without facing liability for contempt: First, Orange may enforce the Order against any alleged members of OVC who are not

than does the federal Constitution. See Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Office of Educ., 57 Cal. 4th 197 (2013). We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of equitable relief against OPD on Plaintiffs’ state law claim as well.
OPD does dispute the district court’s separate determination that OPD conspired with OCDA to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. We need not and do not reach this argument. The district court also concluded that OPD was “liable individually” for violating Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the federal and California constitutions, and OPD does not contest that independent basis for its liability.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 60 of 86 Page ID #:22250

58

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

members of the Plaintiff class. Second, Orange is free to return to the Superior Court to move to add any members of the plaintiff class as named parties to the existing Order. If Orange is successful in convincing the Superior Court by “clear and convincing evidence” that a Plaintiff is an active gang member, see Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th at 1256, any resulting state-court order would supersede the current Order, and the federal injunction would not bar enforcement of such a new order. Third, Orange could propose to the district court a plan for modifying the injunction and allowing enforcement of the Order against Plaintiffs, contingent on affording additional pre-enforcement procedural protections, such as a robust, neutral administrative process. The district court could then determine whether the proposed procedure cures the current constitutional deficiencies. See, e.g., Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1946 (2011) (noting that “[t]he power of a court of equity to modify a decree of injunctive relief is long-established, broad, and flexible”).

Orange has not disputed Plaintiffs’ reasonable interpretation of the federal injunction. We agree with the proffered interpretation, and with the understanding that if Orange proposes a procedure constitutionally sufficient to determine which members of the Plaintiff class are members of OVC against whom the Order may be enforced, the district court will consider modifying the injunction.27

27 If an appropriate motion is made, it may be useful for the district court to set up a process for the parties to propose and comment on possible alternative procedures. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 883 (9th Cir. 2001) (Berzon, J., concurring) (describing the district court’s issuance of “an umbrella injunction,” followed by district court oversight of the parties’ “directed negotiation process” aimed at “develop[ing] specific policies and procedures” for complying with the broad injunction).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 61 of 86 Page ID #:22251

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

59

VI.

Throughout the extensive district court proceedings, including litigation of a motion for a preliminary injunction, cross-motions for summary judgment, and an eleven-day bench trial, counsel for Plaintiffs incurred more than 5900 hours in billable hours. As prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs ultimately obtained an award of $3,237,249 in attorney’s fees. On appeal, Orange challenges the fee award in only a single respect: it asserts error in the district court’s finding that “no special circumstances” made a fee award “unjust.” Orange asserts as special circumstances both its “good faith,” and its powerlessness to “issue” the Order and to “ignore” it once “signed.” We review the district court’s award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Mendez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109, 1124 (9th Cir. 2008).

The “special circumstances” exception to an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 “applies only in unusual cases.” Id. at 1126. “‘[A] court’s discretion to deny fees under § 1988 is very narrow and . . . fee awards should be the rule rather than the exception.’” Barnard v. Theobald, 721 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1126). “The defendant has the burden of showing [that] special circumstances warrant a denial of fees, and the defendant’s showing must be a strong one.” Herrington v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 744 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted). To determine whether such circumstances exist, we evaluate “whether (1) allowing attorney’s fees would further the purposes of § 1988, and (2) whether the balance of equities favors or disfavors the denial of fees.” Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1126 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 62 of 86 Page ID #:22252

60

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

The first factor is clearly satisfied. The fee award “further[ed] the statutory purpose of § 1988[, namely] to enable private citizens who could otherwise not afford to vindicate their civil rights to do so.” Herrington, 883 F.2d at 743 (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the lack of precedents regarding the due process protections required in circumstances such as these, there was no “strong likelihood of success on the merits . . . at the outset of the litigation.” See Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1126. Nor, given the fact that Plaintiffs sought only equitable relief, was there “a strong likelihood of a substantial judgment” from which Plaintiffs’ counsel could anticipate obtaining compensation. See id.

With regard to the “balance of equities” factor, we find no support in our caselaw for the proposition that Orange’s “good faith” and its powerlessness to “issue” or “ignore” the Order qualify as special circumstances precluding the few award.

First, a “defendant’s good faith belief that it was following the law does not,” at least “by itself,” “qualify as a ‘special circumstance.’” See Saint John’s Organic Farm v. Gem Cnty. Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Teitelbaum v. Sorenson, 648 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam)).

Second, Orange’s contention that it “obvious[ly] . . . had no power to issue the [Order] itself, and [it] certainly had no discretion to ignore the [Order] once it was signed” rests on the same erroneous interpretation of the Order we have already rejected. The Order did not, by its terms, require Orange to enforce it against the Plaintiffs or anyone else, much less require them to do so without the procedural protections due under the federal and California

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 63 of 86 Page ID #:22253

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

61

constitutions.28 Instead, it was Orange that determined to cut short Plaintiffs’ access to a fully adequate adjudicatory forum by dismissing them from the state court lawsuit once they sought actively to present a defense.

CONCLUSION

We are mindful of the great importance of controlling the proliferation of criminal gangs and preventing illegal activity by gang members. Anti-gang injunctions such as the one at issue here broadly restrict the covered individuals’ legal daily activities in a prophylactic effort to prevent illegal activities from taking place. There is no challenge before us as to the propriety of that effort as applied to properly covered individuals, and we express no view whatsoever on the substantive terms of this or any other anti-gang injunction. But the breadth of the injunction, given its prophylactic character, does give rise to unusually strong liberty interests on the part of those putatively covered.

In light of those interests, some adequate process to determine membership in the covered class is constitutionally required. Had Orange not dismissed the Plaintiffs from the state court lawsuit, that process would have been provided.

28 Because Defendant Rackauckas is not subject to equitable remedies for violations of state law in this case, see supra Section III, it is possible that there is some difference in the amount of the fee award (which included a state-law multiplier) that can be applied to him. We leave it to the district court in the first instance to determine whether there is in fact some portion of the fee award for which Defendant Rackauckas is not responsible.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 64 of 86 Page ID #:22254

62

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

Because Orange engineered that dismissal, there cannot be enforcement against these plaintiffs without some alternative adequate process. That is all we decide today, nothing more.

Defendants shall bear the costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 65 of 86 Page ID #:22255
Exhibit A

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 6P6agoef :8960 oPfa3(g10e724ID0 of 1952) #:22256

i"'-
\/
I '\
\.j

-
~

I

2

3

4

5

6

7 g

(.

(
W

ORIGINAL

SUPERlOR COURT OF CAliFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL .JUSTICE CENTER

Case No. 30-2009-00118139

FOSED1 ORDER ron
ERMANENT INroNCTION

14

v,

15 - ORANGE VARRlO cYPRESS CRIMINA
16 STREET GANG (an unincorporated association)
STEVE ABAD (aka Steven Abad), NAN AD 17 (aka Ivan Deeter Abad, Shadey. Shady)
1& ALEXANDER CISNEROS AGUIRRE (aka- AI 19 Garcia, Alejtmdro Aguine, Alex Agairre, Ale
Cisneros Aguirre, Pa.\JJo Gonzales, Cartoon), JO 20 .A-mHONY ALVAIW)O (llka. Philip 21 Joseph Alvarado, Felipe _Dejesus Estnlda, Joe
Stranger), MIGUEL ALV:IDlffiZ (aka Migue
22 Aolvi<irez. Sleeper, Sleepy), MONlQUE AMB~ ALVARADO, WlLLI,AM ARANDA (aka Wi!'
23 Chavez Aranda, Willie Aranda, William Chav 24 Aranda, william ChflVez;W'tUy Chavez Arande 25 William Aranda Jr., William ChaVC2 Aranda Jr.
Casper), ERIKA VANESSA ARANDA (aka 26 Mariscal Aranda, Erika Vanessa Arando,
Vanessa Miranda, Gumby. Ms. Smokey) 27 RAYMOND MARTIN A'I'ENCIO (aka Ra 2& Atencio, Ra ond Martin Attencio, Re

-_. 1 .
;ASENO. SACV09.I090 VBF (RNB_x) Manuel Vasquez. el al

lIS. Tony Rackauckas. e~~1

_

PlAINTlFF'S EXHIBIT DAT[

I?

_

IDEN.

IlATE

EVil).

BY

AO 386

~Order

for PermanentInjunction

EXHIBIT 19 PAGU

01642

001596

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 6P7agoef :8961 oPfa3(g10e724ID1 of 1952) #:22257

/"" \/
C)
( '\ \/

•

.(,'

Martin Atencio, Rey Atencio, Reymond Marti 2 Atencio, IV, Raymond Martin Atencio, IY. Raymon
Atencio, Ray Ray, Rey Rey, Demon), JESUS JOS 3 AVILA (aka Jesus Avila, Jesus AVIla Gcnzale 4 Chewy), JA'v1ER AVlLA (aka Jesus Mila, Javie
Avila Gonzalez, Javi, Javy, Smokey), JOSE AYAL
5 (aka Jose Ayala, Jr., Shadow), JOSEPH ANTRO 6 BAEZ (aka Joseph Anthony Bad, Spooky, Spooks
Spookster), RANDY BASTIDA (aka 'RandyWilli 1 Bastida), GABRIEL BASTIDA (aka Gabriel Nasari
Bastida), JUAN BENITEZ, JR. (aka Juan) & WILLIAM RYAN BOOKER (aka Ryan Booker 9 Stalker), JOSHUA ALLAN BRANCH (aka los 10 Allen Branch. Joshua Branch, Joshua A. Branc
Joshua Allen Branch, Cricket), AND 11 CALDERON (aka Andrew Micbael Calderon, Kid)
12 BRIAN JAVlER CAMACHO, JAVIE CAMACHO (aka Brian Gutierrez, Laughing Boy)
13 LAU~O CAMPOS (aka Laura Campos, Lau
14 Cumpos, Lauro Campos-Rosas, Goofy, Midnight) JESUS COMEA CANO (aka Jesus Cano Co
15 Jesus Cantu Correa, Chewee, Chewy, Chuy) 16 CELERINO CARBAJAL (aka Whisper), ANGE
ANTHONY CERVANTES (aka Playboy) 17 ENRlQUE OCHOA CERVANTES (aka Rick)
Cervantes, Soldier Ricky), RENE RAYMO 18 CHAVEZ (aka Indio), ANNA SILVIA COOP 19 (aka Ana Silvia Nogales, Anna Silvia Nogales, Ms
20 Shaggy), MICHAEL GALBRAI1'H COOPER ( Michael GalbriL\ Mike Cooper, Michael
21 Michael Cooper, Jesse Soto," Cartoon, Shaggy 22 Smokey), M...fl...RTINSALVADOR CORNEJO (
Lil Martin, Rabbit), RUBEN CAND,'u..Ld~ 23 CRUZ (aka Reuben Cruz., Ruben Cruz, Rub
Caodellania Cruz, Pirate), MIGUEL ALAHONDR 24 CRUZ, LOUIS MIGUELDEHEAAERA (aka Louie 25 Tiger), ROY DAYID DEHERRERA (aka Patrie 26 Phillip Dellcrrera, Pat DeHerrera, Patrick Phili
DeHerrea, Patrie Philip DeHerera, Patrick Phili 27 Herra, P. Herrera, Roy DeHerrera, Patrie
28 DcHen:ern, Patrick Pbilli Herrera, Patrick P

2 fProposed} Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHJBIT J9 PAGE 2

001597

01643

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 6P8agoef :8962 oPfa3(g10e724ID2 of 1952) #:22258

(~ \/

•

•(

(

Deherrera, Patrick Philip Herrera) ,PATR!

2 PHILIP DEHERRERA (aka Patrick Philli

DeHerceba, Patarick Philip DeHerrea, Popeye)

3 HECTOR DELATORRE JR. (aka Hector Junio

4 Delatorre, Matthew Montoya, Scrap, Scraps, Skrap) JAVlER ESPARZA (aka John David Esparz

5 Gizmo), HUGO ADRIAN ESTEVES (aka Blaze)

6 CHRlSTIAN M01SES GALINDO (aka Christi

Msoses Galindo, Cristian Moises Galindo, Christi 7 Mmoises Galindo, Anthony Perez, Edgar GalilJdo)

ANDREW PAUL GARCIA (aka Andrew Garci

8 Youngster, Wacko), JAVIER HUGO GARCIA (Ilk

9 Negro), JOEL JOSEPH GARC1t\ (aka Joseph F

10 Garcia, Joseph Franklin Garcia], MIGUEL AN GARCIA (aka Bunny, Rabbit), JUOUI.RDl
II ANTHONY GARCIA (aka Richard Garcia, Shorty

12 Little Richard, Rich, VaJarta), RONNIE ANDRm
IGARCIA (aka Ronnie Guillermo Garcia, Evil, R

13 Run), EDUARDO GOMEZ (aka Eddie Gom ~

14 Eddie, Eddy, Trip, Trips), ALEX GONZALEZ ( Alex Gonzales, Alejandro Gonzalee, UI Hitman)

15 EMMANUAL GOMEZ (aka Gustavo Gorn

16 Manny, Pelon), JOSEPH MlCHAEL GONZALEZ JR. (aka Joe Michael Gonzales, Joseph Mi
17 Gonzales, Joe Gonzales, Joseph M. Gonzales, Josep

18 Gonzales, Joseph Michael Gonzalez, Josep Gonzalez, Joe Gonzalez, Shanker), JUAN L

19 \ GONZALEZ (aka Abel Pioo Martinez, ~Lazy) 20 JASON ROBERT GRAY (aka Demon, Jay)
. CHARLES RICHARD GREEN (sh Charles

21 \RiChard Green, Charles Richard Rojas, Richar 22 Charles ROjas, Charles Fitchorp Green. Richard C

Green.,... Droopy, Green Eyes), .J..OSE DE1ES~. 23 GUZMAN (ab Jose Dejesus Guzman Macias, J
I '),1 Guzman. Jose Delesus Macias), ANTHO
- . CHRISTOPHER HART (aka Anthony C. H 25 Anthony Christophe Hart, Sucio), ALBER 26 ANTHONY HERNANDEZ (aka Albert Remand
Jr., Lil Shsggs, Lil Shaggy, Pee Wee), LO 27 ALEJANDRA HUERTA (aka Lady Wicked)
on 28 JAVIER GREGORY HURTADO aka Gte

3

~1

Order for Permanent mjunction

EXHIBIT 19 PAGE ~

001598

01644

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 6P9agoef :8963 oPfa3(g10e724ID3 of 1952) #:22259

1\ \/
C)

•

(

Javier Hurtado, Javier Gregorio Hurtado, Jr., L

2 Evil, Javy, Little Evil), JESSE BERNAL LARA (a

Jesse Lara, Joker), MIGUEL BERNAL LARA (

3 Wicked Lara, Boxer, Wicked), DA

4 EMA.NUALLOPEZ (aka Daniel Emanuel Lope

Daniel Emanual Lopez, Daniel EmanoaI Lo
5 Daniel Lopez, Little Man. Travieso), JONA

MICHAEL LOPEZ (aka Jonathan Lopez, Jobne

6 Michael Lopez, Charles Michael Lopez, Jonth

7 Michael Lopez, Jonathan Michael Lopez, Johnny

Before, Polm, Sparky), JOSE ANTONI 8 LORENZO (aka Pooh), AN<JEI:..LUNA (aka Ang

9 Sevilla Luna), CARLOS MARTINEZ MAGAN

10 (aka Carlos Magana Martinez, Mr. Goofy)

ANTHONY PEREZ MARTINEZ (aka Anthon

II Martinez, Hector Martinez, Anthony Eliff: Antb<in

J 2 P. Martinez, Anthony perez Martinez, Jr.),EOO

EDUARDO MARTINEZ (aka RascaJ), lOS
13 ANTONIO ~mmz (aka Tony Matti..'lez, Tony)

14 JOSE CARLOS MAYORGA (aka Doeboy, DOll

Boy, Doughboy, Joe), HARVEY MEJIA (

15 Cheeky, Gardo), MELISSA NICHOLE MEJIA (

16 Melisa Nichol Mejia, Melisa Nicole Mejia, Nicol Gonzales, Melisa Saucedo, Melissa Saucedo,

17 Boo), ADRIAN MENDOZA (aka Mr. Sparkey

18 Sparky), ENRlQUE CAMACHO MERAZ (

Em:ique Merez, Gangster, Gremlin, Lil OG, L

19 Shortce, O.G. Original), MJCHAEL ALBERT

2() MORALES, JAIME MIGUEL MORGUTIA, (aka Jaime Morgutia, Jaime Morgutia, Jr.• Jaime

21 Morgutia, Jaime Miguel Morgutia), JOSE D

nMUNOZ (aka Jose Munoz, Goody, Innocent, L'

Good, Lil Goody, LilTrips), ANGELA LA

23 NAVARRO (lika Angie L. Navarro, Angeio NaVM!o Angel Laura Navarro, Angie. Big Angie, Grumpy

24 [.a Grumpy), GILBERT NBGRE1'~(aka Gilbert

25 Negrete, Wolfy), JOSE AJ)AN NIETO (ak

Clumsy), OMAR PATINO (aka Lil Man), DANIE

26 NBFTAlJ PEREZ (aka Daniel Nafala.Perez, Danie

27 Nefaly Perez), GUSTAVO ALFONSO PEREZ (

2& Gustavo]> Cartoon , DlEGO RAMIREZ

4

~

Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHlBlT J9 PAGE 4

001599

01645

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 7P0agoef :8964 oPfa3(g10e724ID4 of 1952) #:22260

•i

Diego Benitez Ramirez, Diego Javier Ramirez)

2 JUAN SERG10 RAMIREZ (aka Juan Ramirez, Jua Carlos Ramirez, Boxer), NATIJANIEL RY
3 RAMIREZ (aka Nathania] Ryan Ramirez, Nathanie Ramirez, Minor), ROMIE DANIEL PERPZ (
4 Oso, Slow, Slow Boy), ZACHARIAH IS· _. 5 RAMIREZ (aka Zacharia Isiah Rameriz, Boxer)

6 ROBERT LOUIS RElL (aka Robert Luis Rei

Robert Luis Riel, Robert Louis Riel, Robert Reil 7 Shanke, Luis, Downer), HOMER LUIS ROS
(aka Homer Alvarez, Luis Rosalez Alvarez, Lui 8 Rosales CIIStro, Homer A!"m':l. Rosales, Lu-

9- Rosales, .Luis Homer Alvarez Rosales, Homer

10 Maze), TYRONE CHRISTOPHER RYE (aka Tro Rye, WiUiam Rye, Tyrone Christophe Rye, Willi

11 Norman Rye, Norman Rye William. Michae 12 Mitchell Veramondi, Richard A. Portillo, Ri
Aaron Pom11o, Thumper), CARLOS MA J 3 S.(\,."l'CHEZ (aka Carlos Perez, Carlos Sanchez perez

14 Lost), LUIS ALBERTO SANCHEZ (aka Cheeks

Kashetez, Cechetes), SHAWN SANDOVAL (

(\ \./

,-

15 Shawny Boy), JESSE SAUCEDO (aka Big Jesse

I

16 Scarp), BEATItlCE DESIREE SEPULVEDA (

Desiree Sepulveda, Dee Dee, Desiree), AD

::=:{::J:::~iiej~~., 17 WAYNE SNEll (aka Adam Wyane Snell, Bones
18 Casper),. BRIAN JOHN SUAREZ (aka Brian Hug Suarez, Dough Boy), FERNANDO TAPIA (
~~:)i.,I~~~

CLARENCE ANlliONY TENORIO (aka Claren~ 21 Teeorio,Tony Tenorio, Clarence Valdivai, Claren 22 Anthony Valdivia - Tenorio, Clever, Klever)
RUBFN' TENORIO (aka Ruben Palacios), D 23 BOY TORRES (aka Baby Boy, Danny Boy, Demon 24 Lil Demon, Little Demon), HERMES GERARD
TROCHEZ (m Hermes C-eraJdo Troches, HerrP'"

2S Taroebez, Hermes Tcrchez, Hermes Teroche

2.6 Herman· Gerardo Trochez, Sleep, Psyco, Syko) MARTIN BLANCO TRUJILLO (aka M .
27 Trujillo, Jose Sotc, Bugsy, Crook, Rhino), D 28 VAS UEZ aka Dann Vas ez, DAVID VICTO

I

,

II-------------=----~-------! fPrepasedl Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHIBIT 19 PAGE 5
001600

01646

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 7P1agoef :8965 oPfa3(g10e724ID5 of 1952) #:22261

( '\
,,--j

•

I VASQUEZ (aka Victor David Vasquez, Davi Vasquez, Hemic, Sneaky), MANUEL VASQU
2 NATHANIEL VALDEZ (aka Nathaniel Valde 3 Arriano, Nathaniel Joseph Valdez, Leva, Nate, Na 4 Dogg, Punk), SERGIO VASQUFZ (aka Sergi
Gonzalez), JESUS ANTONIO VELASQUEZ ( 5 Frog, FiOgger, Froggy, Maniac, Groggy), YO
VELASQUEZ (aka Yony Velasquez, Clown) 6 RA YMUNDO VELEZ (aka Raymundo Rivas Vel 7 Artie, Arti1c, Joker, Klone), JEFFREY SEB
VlLLALBA (aka Jeffrey Villalba, Shy Boy, Sh 8 One), ALFONSO MFJIA YEPEZ (aka Alfon 9 Majayepez, Alfonso Yepez, Alfonso Clemen
Reyes, Alfonso Mejia - Yepez, Alfoozo y~ 10 Mqfu), ALEXIS FERNANIX} ZAMORA (aka Al 1] Zamora, Rocky, Rookie, 4), EDGAR MlGU ]2 ZAMORA (aka Edgar Zamora, Edgar M. Zamo
Chief, Dopey, DOPPY), and DOES 1-150, inclusive,

::

Dd~~G.

I

16

17

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ORANGE

18 VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG (an unincorporated association), and the

19 ORANGE VARRlO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG'S members, participants, agents, 20 associates, servants, employees, aiders, and abettors whose ltIe!Ilbershlp. participation, agency,

21 association, service, employment, aid. or abetment is more thlln nominal,passive, inactive, or Tl purely technical, and all persons acting under, in concert with, for the OeJlefit ot: at the direction

23 of, or in association with ORANGE VARRIO CYPRESS CRIMINAL STREET GANG ina 24 manner that is more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical, and Miguel AJvi<lrez

25 (aka Miguel Aolvidrez, Sleeper, Sleepy), Raymond Martin Atencio (aka Ray Atencio, Raymond

26 Martin Attencio, Reymond Martin Atencio, Rey Atencio, Reymond Martin Atencio, IV,

27 Raymond Martin Atencio, IV, Raymond Atencio, Ray Ray, Rey Rey, Demon), Jose Ayala (aka

28 jose Ayala, JJ., Shadow), Joseph Anthony Baez {aka Joseph Anthony Bad, Spooky, Spooks,

6

~]

Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHIBIT 19 PAGE 6

01647

001601

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 7P2agoef :8966 oPfa3(g10e724ID6 of 1952) #:22262

r """',
\/
(\ \"j
! '\ / ~.

•

•i

&'pookster), Gabriel Bastida (aka Gabriel Nasario Bastida), Joshua Allan Branch (aka Josh Allen
2 Branch, Joshua Branch, Joshua A. Branch, Joshua Allen Branch, Cricket), Lauro Campos (aka 3 Laura Campos, Lauro Cumpos, Lauro Campos-Rosas, Goofy, Midnight), Jesus Cornea Cano 4 (aka Jesus Cano Correa, Jesus C.antu Correa, Chewee, Chewy, Cbuy), Rene Raymond Chavez 5 (aka Indio), Martin Salvador Cornejo (aka Lil Martin, Rabbit), Ruben CandiUaria Cruz (aka 6 Reuben CI1l2, Ruben Cruz, Ruben Candellarria Cruz, Pirate), Javier Esparza (aka John David 7 Esparz, Gizmo), Ronnie Andrew Garcia (aka Ronnie Guillermo Garcia, Evil, Run Run), Andrew
s Paul Garcia (aka Andrew Garcia, Youngster, Wacko), Richard Anthony Garcia (aka Richard
9 Garcia, Shorty; Litde Richard. Ricb,Valarta);AIex-Gonzalez (aka7\:le:x-{3om:ales, Alejandro 10 Gonzalez, Lil Hitman), Juan Luis Gonzalez (aka Abel Pico Martinez, Lazy), Jason Robert Gray
I 1I (aka Demon, Jay), Charles Richard Green (aka Charles Green, Richard Green, Charles Richard
12 Rojas, Richard Charles ~Ojas, Charles Fitchorp Green, Richard C. Green, Droopy, Green Byes),
13 Jose Delesus Gll1.lOOIl (aka Jose Dejesus Guzman Macias, Jesus Guzman, Jose Dejesus I
14 Macias), Javier Gregory Hurtado (aka Gregorio Javier Hurtado, Javier Gregorio Hurtado, 15 Jr., Lil Evil, Javy, Little Evil), Jesse Bernal Lara (8ka Wicked Lara, Joker), Jonathan Michael 16 Lopez (aka Jonathan Lopez, Jobnathan Michael Lopez, Charles Michael Lopez, Jonthon 17 Michael Lopez. Jonathan Michael Lopez, Johnny, Before, Polm, Sparky), Jose Carlos Mayorga 18 (aka Doeboy, Dough Boy, Doughboy, Joe), Harvey Mejia (aka Chucky, Garda), Adrian
I I 19 Mendoza [aka M..r. Sparkey, Spa..-rky), Enriqne C.aroacho Meraz (aka Enrique Merez, Gangster,
20 ~cmlin: til ~G,?Lil_S~rtee, O.G. O~gi~. Ja~e Miguel M~tia, Jr. (~ Jaime ~orgutia, 21 Jarme Morgutia, rr., Janne M. Morgutia, Jaime Miguel Morgutia), Omar Patino (aka LI1Man), 22 Juan Sergio Ramirez (aka Juan Ramirez, Juan Carlos Ramirez. Boxer), Zachariah Isaiah 23 Rarnirez (aka Zacbaria Isiah Rameriz, Boxer), Diego Ramirez Iaka Diego Benitez Ramirez, 24 Diego Javier Ramirez), Nathaniel Ryan Ramirez (aka Nathania! Ryan Ramirez, Nathaniel 25 Ramirez, Minor), Robert Louis Reil (aka Robert Luis Reil, Robert Luis Riel, Robert Louis Riel, 26 Robert Reil, Shanke, Luis, Downer), Tyrone Christopher Rye taka Tioy Rye, William Rye, 27 Tyrone Christophe Rye, William· Nomum' Rye;' Noonan Rye William, Michael Mitchell 28 Veramondi, Richard A. Portillo, Richard Aaron Portillo, Thumper), Carlos Manuel sanch~ (aka

7

~]

Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHIBIT 19 PAGEl

01648

001602

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 7P3agoef :8967 oPfa3(g10e724ID7 of 1952) #:22263

/'" \/

•• -
Carlos Perez, Carlos Sanchez Perez, Lost), Shawn Sandoval (aka Shawny Boy), Clarence Anthony Tenorio'(aka Clarence Tenorio, Tony Tenorio, Clarence Valdivai, Clarence Anthony Valdivia - Tenorio; Clever, Klever}, Yom Velasquez (aka Yony Velasquez, Clown), Alexis Fernando Zamora (aka Alex Zamora, Rocky, Rookie, 4), Edgar Miguel Zamora (aka Edgar Zamora, Edgar M. ZllInOIa; Chief, Dopey, Doppy), Danny Boy Torres(aka Baby Boy, Danny Boy, Demon, Lil Demon, Little Demon), Martin Blanco Trujillo (aka Martin Trujillo, Jose Soto, Bugsy, Crook. Rhino) are enjoined from engaging in or performing directly or indirectly, any of the following activities in the Safety Zone:
Tbe-Safety-Zone is-4IDnOO-as follows:
I. DOWNTOWN TERRITORY ,
The north curb-line of Collins Avenue; to the west curb-line of Glass ell Street; to the-north curbline of Jacaranda Avenue; to the east curb-line of Grand Street: to the north curb-line of Collins Avenue; to the west curb-line of Cambridge Street; to the north curb-line of Adams Avenue; to the east curb-line of California Street; to the north curb-line of Collins Avenue; 10 the east curbline of Cambridge Street; to the south curb-line of La Veta Avenue; to the east curb-line of Shaffer Street, continuing along the wrought iron fence-line that boarders the eastern perimeter of Hart Park; to the cinder-block wall that surrounds Hart Park; to the west curb-line of Glassell; to the south curb-line of La Veta; to the west curb-line of Crest Street; to the west curb-line of Feldner Street; to the south curb-line of Chapman Avenue; to the west curb-line of Eckhoff Street; to the south fence-line located to the rear of the businesses at 2100-2200 W. Orangewood; to tho east curb-line of the Orangewood off-ramp of the northbound 57 freeway; to the north curb-line of Orangewood Avenue; to the west curb-line of Main Street; to the north curb-line of Collins Avenue.
II. lllGID.AND TERRITORY: (Area 1) The north curb-line of Lincoln Avenue to the north, the south curb-line of Meats Avenue to the soujh, the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Preeway to the east, and the west curb-line of Canal Street to the west; (Area 2) The north curb-line of Meats Avenue to

8 ~ooed] Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHIBIT J2 __PAGE ~

01649

001603

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 7P4agoef :8968 oPfa3(g10e724ID8 of 1952) #:22264

/ <, \/
;"-
\.../

•

~- .~

1 the north, the fence-line located behind the businesses at 1592 North Tustin Street to the south,

2 the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the cinderblock wall

3 located behind the businesses on Tustin Street to the west; (Area 3) The fence-line located

.4 b--JJind the businesses at 1592 Nort.h 1'u.,<:tID Stre.et to the north, the south curb-line of Katella

5 Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the cast, the 6 fence-line located behind the businesses at 1400-151& and 1582 North Tustin Street to the west; 1 (Area 4) The cinder block wall located behind the businesses on the north-west corner of Tustin 8 Street and Katella Avenue to the north and west, the north curb-line of Katells Avenue to the 9 south,-frilfWest sound-barrier wall (}fthe-south-bound 55 Freeway to the east; (Area 5)-Thenortb 10 curb-line of the Katella Avenue to the north, the south curb-line of Collins Avenue to the south. 11 the west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the east curb-line of 12 California Street to the west; (Area 6) The north curb-line of Collins Avenue to the north, the
J3 sooth curb-line of Mayfair Avenue to the south. the west sound-barrier wall of the southbound ,
14 55 Freeway to the' east, tbe east curb-line of Shattuck Street to the west; (Area 7) The north 15 curb-line of Mayfair Avenue to the north, the north curb-line of Walnut Avenue to the south. the 16 west sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the cinder block wall located 17 behind the businesses on Tustin Street to the west; (Area 8) The north curb-line of Walnut 18 Avenue to the north, the south curb-tine of Palm Avenue to the south, the west sound-barrier 19 wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the east curb-line of Shattuck Street to the west; 20 (Area 9) The north curb-line of Palm Avenue 10 the north, the north curb-tine of Chapman
I 21 Avenue to the SOlJ1h. the-west-sound-barrier wall of the south-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the
22 cinder block wan locate behind the businesses on TUstin Street to the west; (Area 10) The north
23 curb-line of Chapman Avenue to the north, the south curb-line of Palmyra Avenue to the south. 24 the west sound-barrier wall of the soufh-bound 55 Freeway to the east, the cast curb-line of 25 I.incoln Street to the west,

26 III. HOOVER-WILSON TERRITORY: 27 The north curb-line of'Katella Avenue to the north; the south curb-line of Collins Avenue to the 28 south; the east curb-line of Glassell Street to the east; and the OCfA Metro-Link railroad tracks

"-.I '\ )

9

~

Order for Permanent Injunction

01650

001604

CaCsaes8e:0191-c-5v5-07190590-V02B/F0-1R/2N0B13 DocumIDe:n8t 45927269F2iledD1k1t/E2n9t/r1y3: 63P-a7ge 7P5agoef :8969 oPfa3(g10e724ID9 of 1952) #:22265

I "'.
\/

•

•i

to the west (A map of the Safety Zone is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
I a, Do Not Associatel Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public,
or in public view, do not stand, sit, walk:, drive, bicycle, gather or appear with (1) any person named herein, (2) anyone you knaw to be a mlmlber. participsnt, agent, associate, servant, employee, aider, or abettor of the Orange Varna Cypress criminal street gang, or (3) anyone yon know to be acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang. (People ex rei. Gallo v. ACWla, supra, 14
CalAth at nio, 1117.lt1 &, 1121-1l22 [diScussion of provision (a)], 1123-1125; In re
Englebrecht, supra; 67 Cal.A:pp.4tl:r-at~~S9. 490 fn.-3 [quoting par (a)); People v, Englebrecht, supra, 88 CaLAppAth at 1243 and t261; People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques
(2007) 156 Cal.App.4tb n,37.)
b. Do Not Intimidate: Anywhere in l1l1y public place, any place accessible to the public, ,or in public view, do not (1) confront, intimidate, annoy, harass, threaten, challenge, provoke, assault, or batter anyone in the Safety Zone, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking, assaulting, or battering anyone in the Safety Zone. (People ex rei. Gallo v. Acuna, supra, 14 CalAth at 1118-1122; In re Englebredlt, supra, 61 Cal.AppAth at 490 fn, 3, 493, [par (k)D; People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 Cal.App.4'\ 31, 37.)
c. Stay Aw~y From Drugs llnd Drug l'arapbernalia: Anywhere in lilly public place, any place accessible to the public, or in publio view, do not (1) unlawfully use, possess, transport, furnish, manufacture, deliver, dispense, distribute, O£ sell lilly drug or drug paraphernalia, (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully using, possessing, transporting, furnishing, manufacturing, delivering, dispensing, distributing, or selling any drug or drug paraphernalia, (3) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully UJlOeI' the influence of llIly drug, (4) knowingly remain in the presence of any illegal drug or drug paraphernalia, or (5) unlawfully be under the influence of any drug. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 4060, 4140-4141; Health & Saf. Code §§ 11014, 11014.5,11018.11021,11053-

10

~

Order forPermanent Injunction

EXPIBIT 19 PAGE 10

01651

001605

CCasaese8::0191-c5v5-70915090-0V2B/0F1-R/2N01B3 DocuImDe: n8t459272692FiledD1k1tE/2n9tr/y1:363P-7age P7a6goef:81600Poaf(g31e0725ID0 of 1952) #:22266

(. '<, \/
I <,\
\/

••

•

11058, 11364, and 11S50; Pen. Code § 3]; People v, Englebrecht, supra, 88 C31.AppAth at 1243, fn, 2. (par (l)D; People ex. rei. Totten v. ColoniIJ Chiques, supra; 156 CaLApp.4''', 31, 37.)
d. Sta.y Away From Guns, Explosive Devices nd Weapons: Anywhere in any public 1 place, any place accessible to the public, 01 in public view, 00 not (1) use,}lOSsess, transport, furnish, manufacture, deliver, dispease, distribute, or sell any firearm, gun, replica firean», ammunition, BB gun, pellet gun, explosive device, destructive device, or weapon such as knives, dirks, daggers, clubs, metal knuckles, hard plastic knuckles, nunchakus, chains, slingshots, or any weapon listed in Penal Code § J2020, (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is using, possessing, transporting, furnishing, manufacturing, delivering, dispensing, distributing, or selling any firearm, gun, replica firearm, ammunition, BB gun, pellet gun, explosive device, destructive device, or weapon such as knives, dirks, daggers, clubs, metal knuckles, hard plastic knuckles, nunchakns, chains, slingshots, or any weapon listed in Penal
Code § 12020, or (3) knowingly me remain in p1eseliC<! of any firearm, gun, replica firearm, I
ammunition, BB gun, pellet gun, explosive device, destructive device, or weapon such as knives, dirks, daggers, clubs, metal knuckles, hard plastic knuckles, nnnchakus, chains, slingshots, or any weapon listed in Penal Code § 12020. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 12000, 12120, 12303, and 12305; Pen. Code§§ 31, 12001, 12020,12020.1,12301.12550; OMC §§ 932.010, 9.32.020; People v. Bngiebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.AppAth at 1243, fn. 2, (par (c), (j)J); People ex.
IIrei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 CaLAppAth, 31, 37.) c. Do Not Fight: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) unlawfully fight or challenge another person to fight, (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone YOll know is unlawfully fighting or challenging another person to fight, (3) maliciously and willfully disturb another person by loud or unreasonable noise, (4) remain ,in the presence of or assist anyone: you know is maliciously and willfully disturbing another person by loud at unreasonable noise, (5) use offensive words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction, or (6) remain in the presence of or assist anyone YOl1 know is using offensive words which axe inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent

II
lPrepese6j.Order for Permanent Injunction
EXHIBIT 19 PAGE II
001606

01652

CCasaese8::0191-c5v5-70915090-0V2B/0F1-R/2N01B3 DocuImDe: n8t459272692FiledD1k1tE/2n9tr/y1:363P-7age P7a7goef:81601Poaf(g31e0725ID1 of 1952) #:22267

! ."
\/

-. •
reaction. (pen. Code §§ 31 and 415; People v. Englebrecht, supra. 88 Ca1.AppAth at 1243, fn. 2, [par (d)]); People ex. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156 CaLApp.41h, 31, 37.)
r. Do Not Trespass: Do not (1) be present-on, remain on, or pass through any property not open to the public unless you have the voluntary consent of the owner, owner's agent, or the 1
person in lawful possession of the property, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is present on any property not open to the public without the voluntary consent of the owner, owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (People v, Eng/ebrecht, supra. 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243, in. 2, {par (g}J); People ex. rel. Totten v. Colonia Cbtques. supra. J56 CaJ.AppAllI, 31, 37.)
g. Do Not Block Free Passage: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (I) willfully and maliciously block the free passage of any
I person or vehicle on any street, walkway, sidewalk, driveway, alleyway, or other area of public
IIpassage, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is willfully and maliciously
blocking the free passage of any person or vehicle Oll any street, walkway, sidewalk, driveway, alleyway, or other area of public passage. (pen. Code §§ 31 and 647c; OMC § 12.64.020; 1" re Englebrecht, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 490 fit. 3,493 [par (h)].)
h. Do Not Engage In Graffiti and/or Vandalism And Stay Away From GraffitiIVandalism Tools: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) maliciously spray paint, mark with marker pens, or otherwise deface property with graffiti or other inscribed material on any public property or private property not yOU! own, (2) remain in the presence of or as~.!itanyone you know is maliciously spray painting. marking with marker pens, or otherwise defacing property with graffiti or other inscribed material on any public or private \)ropeny not belonging to him. her or you, (3) maliciously damage or destroy real or personal property Dot your own, (4) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is maliciously damaging or destroying real or personal property not belonging to him, her or you, (5) unlawfully possess spray paint cans, marker pens, knives, screwdrivers, razor blades, nails, or other objects capable of destroying, damaging, or defacing property, or (6) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully possessing spray paint CllJ1S,

~Order

12 for Permanent injunction

EXHIBIT 19 PAGE 12

01653

001607

CCasaese8::0191-c5v5-70915090-0V2B/0F1-R/2N01B3 DocuImDe: n8t459272692FiledD1k1tE/2n9tr/y1:363P-7age P7a8goef:81602Poaf(g31e0725ID2 of 1952) #:22268

. I' ."
\/
(\ \.../

l.

•

marker pens, knives, screwdrivers, razor blades, nails, or other objects capable of destroying, damaging, or defacing property. (pen. Code §§ 31, 594, and 594.2; OMC §§ 8.37.030, 837.040

8.37.045; People Y. Engiebredu, supra. 88 Cal.AppAth at 1243, fn, 2, [par (e), (f)J); People ex.,

rel. Totten v. Colonia Chiques. supra, 156 C.al.AppA"', 31, 37.) i. Do Not Use Gang Hand Signs or Symbols: Anywhere in any public place, any place

accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) use, display, or communicate by means of any words, phrases, physical gestures, hand signs, or symbols that you know describe, represent, or refer to the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang, or (2) remain in the presence of or .nssistnnyone-youimClwinIsing,displaying, orcommnnicatingby means of any words, phrases, physical gestures, hand signs Of Il)'Inbols that you know describe, represent, or refer to the Orange Varrio Cypress criminal street gang. (People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 1243 fn. 2, 1266·1267 [par (s}]); People ex. rel. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 156

13 I Cal .App.e", 31, 37.)

14

j. Do Not WeJlr Gang Cloth~g: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to

15 the public, or in public view, do not (l) wear, display, exhibit, or poosess llIly clothes or

(

16 accessories that you know advenise.advance, promote, represent, or refer 10 the Orange Varrio

17 Cypress criminal street gang. including clothes or accessories that display, exhibit, or feature; in

18 any variation or combination,ilie image, name, words, or letters, "Orange Varrio Cypress,"

H.'" "Orange VIl1'r10 Cypress Street••" "Cypress Street," "Cypress Street Killers," "Vania Orange."
20 "Varrio Cypress," "Orange Gang," "Old Towne Gang," "Old Towne Orange Gang," "Old

21 Towne Orange," "Orange," "Cypress," "OYC," "OVECE," "Killer Park Gang," "Los Royal

22 Dukes," "Dukes," "Royal Dukes;" "Los Dukes," "Creepers," "Los Creepers," "13," ")(3,"

23 "XIII," or clothes or accessories that ~lay, exhibit, or feature the color orange, or (2) remain

24 in the presence of or assist anyone that you know is wearing, displaying, exhibiting, or

25 possessing any clothes or accessories that you know advertise, advance, promote, represent. or

26 refer to the Orange Varna Cypress criminal street gang. (People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88

27 CalAppAth at 1243 fn. 2, 1266-1267 [par (t)D; People ex. rel. Totten 11. Colonia Chiques,

28 supra, 156 Cal.App.4tl1, 31,37.)

if'tep06edtOrder for Permanent Injunction EXHIBIT 19 PAGE 13

01654

001608

CCasaese8::0191-c5v5-70915090-0V2B/0F1-R/2N01B3 DocuImDe: n8t459272692FiledD1k1tE/2n9tr/y1:363P-7age P7a9goef:81603Poaf(g31e0725ID3 of 1952) #:22269

r""
\/

•

•(

k, Suy Away From Burglary Tools: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not (1) unlawfully use, possess, transport, furnish, manufacture, deliver, dispense, distribute, or sell any screwdrivers, porcelain spark plug chips, shaved keys, picklocks, wire cutters, dent pullers, slingshots, steel shots, spark plugs, "slim jims,' "bump key," or any instrument or tool listed in Penal Code § 466, or (2) remain in the presence of or assist anyone you know is unlawfully using, possessing, transporting, furnishing, manufacturing, delivering, dispensing, distributing, or selling any screwdrivers, porcelain spark plug chips, shaved keys, picklocks, wire cutters, dent pullers, slingshots, steel shots, spark plugs, "slim jims," "bumpkey," or any instrument or tool listed inPenal Code § 466. (Pen. Code § 466; In re Englebrecbt, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 49{) fa, 3, {par (G)]; People Y. Englebrecht, supra, 88 CaLApp.4tb a11243 fn, 2 [par (n)J.)
1. Obey Curfew if Y(')u Are a Minor: If you are under eighteen (18) years of age, anywhere in any public place, anyplace accessible to the public, or in public view, do not, remain in or upon any public place, vacant lot, or business establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. on any day and 5:00 a.m, of the following day, unless: (I) you are accompanied by your parenl(s), legal guardian, or by a responsible adult, (2) you are on an errand without any detour or stop at the direction of your parent(s), legal guardian or responsible adult, (3) you are on a public or private sidewalk in front of your own dwelling or a dwelling directly adjacent to your dwelling, (4) you a!.e acting within the course alld scope of your !awful employment or
Ibusiness or when you are going to or from such place of lawful employment or business by a Ireasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, or when you are going to Of from
8 bona fide interview for 1awful employment by a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or 10 your home, (5) you are going to or from, are attending, or are engaged in, an official school, official religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of your rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which activity is supervised or OVeISeeD by an adult person on behalf of any public entity, civic organization, non-profit organization, educational organization, governmental organization, or similar organization, where you are going to or from such activity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from

~

Order for Permanent Injunction

01655

001609

CCasaese8::0191-c5v5-70915090-0V2B/0F1-R/2N01B3 DocuImDe: n8t459272692FiledD1k1tE/2n9tr/y1:363P-7age P8a0goef:81604Poaf(g31e0725ID4 of 1952) #:22270

( '\
\J

•

•(

or to your home, (6) you are going to or from II place of lawful entertainment, recreation, culture, or charity that is open to the public; such as a restaurant, theater, museum, church, sports arena, homeless shelter, food bank. library, public park during operating hours, gymnasium, bookstore, coffee shop, or hospital, for enactivity that is supervised or overseen by all adult person on behalf of any public entity, civic organization, non-profit organization, educational organization, governmental organization, or similar organization, where you are going to or from such activity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (7) you are a registered volunteer at any shelter, hospital, school or other charitable institution and you arc going to or from your volunteer work in a reasonably direct rowe, without detour, from or to your home, (8) you arc responding to an emergency situation, or (9) you are in a vehicle engaged in interstate travel. (OMC § 9.28.010; In re Englebrecht, supra, 67 CaJ.App3rd III 490 fa. 3, (par (1')J; People Y. Engiebrecht, supra, 88 CalAppAth lit 1243 fn. 2, [par (v}J; In re Nancy C. (1972) 28 Ca1.3rd 747; Alves v. Superior Court (1957) 148 CaI..App.2d. 419.)
m. ObI!)' Cufew lfY()Q Are an Adult: lfyou are eighteen (\&) yean; of ago or older, anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or in public view, do not remain in or Upon any public place, vacant lot, or business establishment 'betweea the hOUJ1l of 10:00 p.m. on any day and 5:00 a.m, of the following day, unless; (l) you are on a public or private sidewalk in front of your own dwelling or a dwelling directly adjacent to your dwelling,
I(2) you a.re acting wrthin the course and scope of your lawful employment or business, or when
you are going to or from such place of lawful employment or business by a reasonably direct
Iroute, without detour, from or to your hom...e or when you are going to or from your home for a
bona fide interview for lawful employment by a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (3) you are going to or from. are attending, or are engaged in, an official school, officiai religious, or other expressive activity within the scope of your rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, where you are going to or from such activity in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your borne. (4) you are going to or from a place of lawful entertainment, recreation, culture, or charity that is open to the public, such as a restaurant, theater, museum, church, sports arena, homeless shelter, food bank, library,

[Proposed] Order for Permanent injunction

.EXHJBITI9

PAGE IS

01656

001610

CCasaese8::0191-c5v5-70915090-0V2B/0F1-R/2N01B3 DocuImDe: n8t459272692FiledD1k1tE/2n9tr/y1:363P-7age P8a1goef:81605Poaf(g31e0725ID5 of 1952) #:22271

r~
\/
f\
\...)

•

•(

,/---

public park during operating hours, gymnasium, coffee shop, or hospital, where you are going 10

2 or from such place in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to your home, (5) you

3 are a registered volunteer at any shelter, hospital, school or other charitable institution and you

4 are going to or from your volunteer work in a reasonably direct route, without detour, from or to

5 your home, (6) yoo are responding to an emergency situation, or (7) you are in a vehicle

6 engaged in interstate travel. (OMC § 9.28,010; In re Englebrecht, supra, 67 CalApp.3rd at 490

7 fu. 3, (par (x)]; People v. Englebrecht, supra, 88 CaI.App.4th at 1243 fn, 2, [par (v)]; In re

8 Nancy C. (1972) 28 Cal.Jrd 747; Alves v. Superior Court (1957) 148 Cal.App.Zd, 419.)

9

n. StIIy Away From Alcohol: Anywhere-iIrnnypublic-place, or anyp!ace-aeee5sible to

10 the public, do not (1) drink alcoholic beverages, (2) possess an open container of an alcoholic

11 beverage, (3) unlawfully be under the influence of alcohol. (4) knowingly remain in the presence

12 of anyone possessing an open container of an alcoholicbeverage, ()f (5) knowingly remain in the

13 presence of an open container of an alcoholic beverage. (Pen. Code § 647(1); Vell. Code §§

\4 21221.5,23140, 23\52(a); OMC §9.16.010; People ex. rei. Totten v; Colonia ChiqUe:l, supra, 15 156 Cal.AppAlII p. 38-39); People ex. rel. Tonen v. Colonia Chiques, supra, 1S6 Cal.AppAll!, 31,

16 37.)

J7

o. Do Not Act as a Lookout: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the

18 public, or .in public view, do not keep watch. yell, whistle, signal, gesture, or otherwise act as a

I 19 lookout to warn another pcrwn of the apprQllCh or presence of a law enforcement officer.
20 (People v. Engelbrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1243, fn. 2, [par (q)); In re Engelbrecht,

21 supra, 67 CalApp.4th 486, 490, fn. 3, [par (r))); People M:. rei. Totten v. Colonia Chiques,

22 supra, 156 CalAppAtil, 31, 37.)

23

p. Obey All Laws: Anywhere in any public place, any place accessible to the public, or

24 in public view, obey all laws and. court orders.

25

26

27

28

16

~

Order for Permanent Injunction

EXHlB1T 19 PAGE 16

01657

001611

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 82 of 86 Page ID #:22272

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

63

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur in the opinion but write separately to more thoroughly describe the backdrop of the anti-gang injunction at issue and to reiterate why today’s holding is confined to the unique procedural and factual record in this case.

My colleagues insist that they are “mindful of the great importance of controlling the proliferation of criminal gangs and preventing illegal activity by gang members.” Maj. at 61. While I do not doubt their sincerity, they devote scant attention in an otherwise comprehensive opinion to explaining why the anti-gang injunction at issue was so vital to City of Orange residents and law enforcement. I write separately to fill that void.

The Orange Varrio Cypress street gang (OVC) is one of the most violent gangs in the City of Orange, California, a suburb of Los Angeles.1 There is no serious dispute that the enterprise engages in on-going criminal activity involving attempted murders, assaults with deadly weapons, terrorist threats, intimidation of victims and witnesses, illegal possession of firearms, robberies, burglaries, thefts, drug sales, and acts of felony vandalism.

1 In providing this overview of the OVC’s activities, I draw primarily from the February 10, 2009, expert declaration submitted by Detective J. Nigro of the Orange Police Department in support of the anti-gang injunction. At the time of his declaration, Detective Nigro had been a sworn peace officer for 13 years, had served in the Orange Police Department’s gang unit for six years, had investigated hundreds of gangrelated cases, and had interviewed over 1,000 gang participants regarding their gangs, graffiti, tattoos, crimes, families, and gang culture.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 83 of 86 Page ID #:22273

64

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

These criminal activities frequently spill over into the community, hurting innocent people. OVC members have robbed and assaulted Chapman University students, beaten up a 13-year-old boy for whistling on his way home from school, and led police on high-speed chases through residential areas. Gang members have stabbed people in the head and back, shot others in the torso and neck, attacked people with bats and pipes, and hit, kicked, and threatened to kill female victims. The gang distributes drugs, using its members to both peddle and stand as lookouts to protect narcotic activity. They also deface community property by painting gang graffiti on buildings, sidewalks, doors, walls, and fences, and etching it into benches, street signs, and glass windows.

Even schools are not immune to the OVC’s violence. The local high school unwillingly plays host to dozens of fights each year between members of the OVC and rival gangs. Still more concerning is that the OVC draws its membership from the pool of pupils attending the same high school, as well as a number of middle schools, to fill its ranks.

Unsurprisingly, many local residents have voiced their concern with the OVC to local law enforcement officers, demanding action to restore law and order to a city whose residents have good reason to fear the OVC’s activities. Many of the complainants live in fear of OVC gang members, and are cautious about using their front yards or even being outside after dark. Still more complain about vandalism, gang graffiti, robberies, and assaults that take place where they live and work. Many citizens are also reluctant to cooperate with police for understandable fear of retaliation, which undoubtedly hinders police efforts to effectively curb gang violence through traditional criminal prosecution.

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 84 of 86 Page ID #:22274

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

65

This is not to say that the OVC is the largest or most dangerous gang in California, or even in Orange County. But this case is emblematic of the legislature’s declaration that California “is in a state of crisis . . . caused by violent street gangs whose members threaten, terrorize, and commit a multitude of crimes against the peaceful citizens of their neighborhoods.” Cal. Penal Code § 186.21. It also provides much-needed context for why the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange Police Department (collectively, Orange) sought and obtained a tough superior court injunction that, as my colleagues put it, “broadly restrict[ed] the covered individuals’ legal daily activities in a prophylactic effort to prevent illegal activities from taking place.” Maj. at 61.

In conducting our procedural due process analysis, we must take into account the government’s and the public’s interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (instructing us to consider “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail”). Orange undoubtedly has a vital interest in protecting its community by suppressing gang violence. But as the court observes correctly, our inquiry under this prong in Mathews is not whether Orange has a significant interest in combating gang violence, but rather whether it has a significant interest in failing to provide a pre-deprivation process to challenge Orange’s gang membership allegations.

In my view, this inquiry cannot be severed from Orange’s unsettling and indefensible decision to voluntarily dismiss every individual who tried to challenge the injunction in the state court proceeding, and then serve those same dismissed

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 85 of 86 Page ID #:22275

66

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

individuals with the injunction it obtained uncontested. By its own admission, Orange adopted this strategy in part because of Plaintiffs-Appellees’ “aggressive effort[s]” to “fight” the injunction. Those efforts included several motions and supporting declarations opposing the entry of a preliminary injunction, written discovery requests, and a schedule of 20 depositions. In effect, the district attorney concluded it was costing too much to litigate against well-financed defense lawyers. Ironically, the taxpayers of Orange County now get to pick up a multi-million dollar tab for the litigation that ensued from the district attorney’s bad tactical decision. The type of “aggressive effort[s]” that Orange sought to sidestep come with the territory. If Orange can rely on our judicial system to pursue its injunction, so too can those being targeted by the injunction who seek to resist it.

I thus share my colleagues’ views that “the procedural due process problems raised in this case are of Orange’s own creation” and that “[t]hey stem from Orange’s decision to thwart Plaintiffs’ efforts to use the procedures available in the state court[.]” Maj. at 50. Indeed, Orange’s dismiss-andserve strategy is the linchpin to its procedural due process violation because today’s opinion applies only to those individuals whom Orange dismissed and later served.

We need not hold, and I do not read today’s opinion as holding, that the post-deprivation procedural remedies that Orange proffered are constitutionally inadequate as to any other class of individuals. Orange may well have a stronger argument under Mathews’ governmental and public interest prong if today’s challenge came from individuals who never appeared in the state court proceeding to contest the injunction and who are actually gang members. But this is not the challenge before us. And to stretch today’s holding to

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 522 Filed 11/29/13 Page 86 of 86 Page ID #:22276

VASQUEZ V. RACKACUCKAS

67

individuals who never challenged the injunction in the state court action—whether named in the lawsuit or not—would effectively force Orange to “bring a new action for injunctive relief against each new member” of the OVC. See People ex rel. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal. App. 4th 31, 41 (2007). Such a rule would dangerously impede law enforcement efforts to curb unlawful gang activity where “[gang] membership is continually changing.” See id. Importantly, today’s holding does not reach so far.

In sum, the ideal procedural protection to avoid being inadvertently included in a proposed injunction will often be to seek relief from a neutral judge before the injunction is entered. Orange’s dismiss-and-serve tactic effectively stripped Plaintiffs-Appellees of that opportunity. That strategic maneuver—when combined with the postdeprivation procedural protections that Orange did provide—is what constituted a procedural due process violation of the United States Constitution.

With those observations, I concur in the opinion.

 
 Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:3497

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. SACV 09-1090-VBF(RNBx)

Dated: April 8, 2010

Title: Manuel Vasquez, et al. -v- Tony Rackaukas, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Rita Sanchez Courtroom Deputy

None Present Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

TENTATIVE RULING RE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. #123)

The Court has received, read, and considered the Motion For Class Certification of Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, Gabriel Bastida, and Randy Bastida (“Plaintiffs”)(dkts. #123), the Amended Memorandum Of Points And Authorities (dkt. #127),1 the Oppositions of Defendant Tony Rackauckas (“Defendant”)(dkt. #129) and Defendant Robert Gustafson (dkt. #128), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (dkt. #130).
Defendant Gustafson states that he will rely on the legal argument of Defendant Rackauckas (Gustafon Opp. at 2:8-9). Further references to arguments of "Defendant" shall mean the arguments raised in the brief of Defendant Rackauckas and thus relied on by Defendant Gustafson, unless specifically noted.
The Court tentatively would grant the motion for class certification, provided that Plaintiffs can address the following concerns at the hearing and present a revised definition of the class where class members are adequately defined and can be determined by clear objective criteria.

1Citations to "Mtn." refer to the Amended Memorandum (dkt. #127).

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-1-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:3498

The Court invites focused argument at the hearing as to class definition. The Court also requests that Plaintiffs’ counsel specifically refer to evidence identifying class members.
1. What, if any, is a re-phrasing of the concept "attempting to appear" that will allow the Court to apply an objective standard to determine who is or is not in the class?
2. What, if any, is a re-phrasing of the concept "direct and intimate knowledge of the Order, Safety Zone, and the prohibitions" that will allow the Court to apply an objective standard to determine who is or is not in the class?
3. Is it more correct to treat the putative class of minors as a separate class rather than a "sub-class", because an individual's status as a minor does not necessarily mean that he "attempted to appear"?
A district court is not to bear the burden of constructing class definitions; rather the burden is on Plaintiffs to submit proposals to the Court. See Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1238 (9th Cir. 2001).
I. Class Definition
Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of (Mtn. 2:17-3:2):
All persons named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009, who appeared or attempted to appear in the Orange County Superior Court to defend themselves and were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney's office and are now bound by the Order for Permanent Injunction against "Orange Vario Cypress Criminal Street Gang" dated May 14, 2009, because they have been served with the Order or have direct and intimate knowledge of the Order, the Safety Zone, and the prohibitions, but do not have contempt proceedings pending against them as of the date of the filing of this litigation - September 23, 2009.
Additionally, Plaintiff Randy Bastida brought this action individually and on behalf of the following purported “sub-class” (Mtn 3:5-17):
All juveniles named as individual defendants in People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-2-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3499

County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009, who could not formally appear because no guardian ad litem was or could be appointed, were voluntarily dismissed by the Orange County District Attorney's office, and are now bound by the Order for Permanent Injunction against "Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang" dated May 14, 2009, because they have been served with the Order or have direct and intimate knowledge of the Order, the Safety Zone, and the prohibitions, but did not have contempt proceedings pending against them as of the date of the filing of this litigation - September 23, 2009.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro 25(c)(5) states that “a class may be divided into subclasses that are each treated as a class under this rule.” In this way, the Rules define “sub-class” as a subset class, wholly contained by some other class. Plaintiffs’ putative class and subclass definitions do not appear to fit this scheme, in that the purported juvenile class would not be wholly contained in the main class. Although the primary putative class consists of individuals who “appeared or attempted to appear,” the purported juvenile class consists of individuals “who could not formally appear because no guardian ad litem was or could be appointed,” a set of individuals that in some respects is broader than the primary class because there may be juveniles who “could not appear” but did not “attempt to appear.” Although the distinction appears to be one mainly of nomenclature, the Court would potentially certify Plaintiffs’ classes as two separate but overlapping classes, rather than as a class and a “sub-class.” If the Parties have any concerns about the Court’s proposed terminology, they should raise the issue at the hearing.
II. Legal Analysis
1. Precision of Definition
“Although not specifically mentioned in [Rule 23], the definition of the class is an essential prerequisite to maintaining a class action.” Roman v. ESB, Inc., 550 F.2d 1343, 1348 (4th Cir. 1976). “It is elementary that in order to maintain a class action, the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.” DeBremaecker v. Short, 433 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cir. 1970). “[T]he requirement that there be a class is not satisfied unless the description of it is sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member.” Davoll v. Webb, 160 F.R.D. 142, 144 (D. Colo. 1995).

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-3-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:3500

Defendant objects that the classes Plaintiffs attempt to certify are not sufficiently precise. Specifically, Defendant attacks as vague and ambiguous the phrases “attempted to appear” and “direct and intimate knowledge of the Order, Safety Zone, and the prohibitions.” Opp. at 10:23-28. Defendant also asserts that these phrases employ subjective rather than objective criteria, impermissibly relying on the potential member’s state of mind. See Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 183 F.R.D. 672, 679 (S.D. Cal. 1999)(“A class description is insufficient . . . if membership is contingent on the prospective member's state of mind.”), quoting Gomez v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 117 F.R.D. 394, 397 (N.D. Ill. 1987). Defendant’s objections have merit.
A. "attempted to appear"
In Plaintiffs' Reply, they attempt to clarify the class definition as it relates to the phrase "attempted to appear": "the class includes those individuals who came to court as a party to take part in the lawsuit either by formally appearing - filing a general denial or answer, wherein they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court - or by informally appearing - attempting to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, but for some reason could not - either because of ignorance of the proper procedures or because of some incapacity." Rep. at 2:15-17.2
Plaintiffs seem to assert that an individual's status as a minor without a guardian ad litem automatically means he "attempted to appear" because he could not formally appear. Rep. at 3:7-9. In the Court’ preliminary opinion, this assertion is erroneous.
In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff's above clarification is still inadequate as a class definition because it contains the word "attempting," which makes the definition rely on the subjective intention of a potential member. A class definition may be possible by relying on more objective manifestations of the concept "attempting to appear," such as attendance at a hearing in the State Action as shown in the clerk’s records or filing any type of paper with the court in the State Action.3

2Plaintiffs’ request in its Reply, p. 2 n. 2, that the Court take judicial notice is not helpful – it fails to identify documents and fails to identifies identify parts of documents requested to be judicially noticed.
3"State Action" refers to the state court action entitled People v. Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang, et al., Orange County Superior Court, 30-2009 00118739, dated February 17, 2009. The "Order"

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-4-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:3501

B. "direct and intimate knowledge of the Order, Safety Zone, and the prohibitions"
Plaintiffs argue that their inclusion of the phrase "direct and intimate knowledge of the Order, the Safety Zone, and the prohibitions" is proper because Defendant Gustafson had previously declared that he would use that same standard to determine against whom to enforce the Order and seek to impose criminal sanctions. Rep. at 4:18-22. Thus, Plaintiffs argue, Defendant's objection to the precision of the term is disingenuous. Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive.
The Court finds that this phrase is impermissibly subjective, and that Gustafson's prior declaration does not make the phrase sufficient for a class definition. A more objective concept, such as service of the Order, may be required for a proper class definition. The Plaintiffs assert in their Motion that at least 22 individuals have been served with the Order to date (Mtn. at 8:6-7). In their Reply, Plaintiffs assert that recently produced documents show that all four named Plaintiffs and 44 potential class members have been served (Rep. at 4:11-12). Thus, the requirement of a more objective definition would not necessarily defeat certification.
A standard that does not rely on a putative class member's knowledge is preferred because of concerns of discernability, and because the case law states that a class definition should not rely on the state of mind of a putative member. See Schwartz, 183 F.R.D. at 679.
2. Numerosity (F.R.C.P. 23(a)(1))
Rule 23(a)(1) states that a class action may be maintained only if “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(1). Impracticable does not mean impossible – only that the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class warrants a class action. Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1964). Plaintiffs must satisfy the Rule 23(a)(1) requirement as to each class and subclass. See Betts v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 659 F.2d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 1981).
As Plaintiffs assert, Rule 23 does not impose absolute numeric limitations, and that the Court may take into account such factors as the ability of individual claimants to bring separate actions and their

refers to the injunction entered in the State Action.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-5-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:3502

desire to seek injunctive relief, which weigh in favor of finding impracticability. See Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds 459 U.S. 810 (1982).
At the hearing, Plaintiffs should be prepared to identify the number of persons who fit into a more precise, appropriate definition of their putative classes. Plaintiffs, in this regard, should more specifically address Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiffs provide no support for their estimate of the number of individuals in their putative classes.
Defendant argues that the classes Plaintiffs seek to certify (only 45 in the main class, 27 in the subclass), are not sufficiently numerous. See Peterson v. Albert M. Bender Co., 75 F.R.D. 661, 667 (C.D. Cal. 1977)(class of 35 to 45 members not sufficiently numerous to make joinder impracticable in sex discrimination action); Roman v. ESB, Inc., 550 F.2d 1343, 1349 (4th Cir. 1978)(class certification denied for lack of numerosity where there were 42 named plaintiffs, and class certification would have mean joining 11 additional persons); Ewh v. Monarch Wine Co., 73 F.R.D. 131, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 1977)(class of 34 to 50 not sufficiently numerous in a sex discrimination case); Williams v. Wallace Silversmiths, Inc., 75 F.R.D. 633, 636 (D. Conn. 1976)(class of 27 not sufficiently numerous in race discrimination case); Wilburn v. Steamship Trade Ass’n of Baltimore, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 1228, 1233 (D. Md. 1974)(class of 26 no sufficiently numerous in race discrimination case). However, in all of the cases mentioned above in this paragraph plaintiffs were seeking damages, not merely an injunction.
Plaintiffs, however, claim that the putative classes are generally large enough to be sufficient to establish numerosity. Mtn. at 13:14; Ansari v. New York Univ, 179 F.R.D. 112, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)(“Generally speaking, courts will find that the ‘numerosity’ requirement has been satisfied when the class comprises 40 or more members and will find that it has not been satisfied when the class comprises 21 or fewer”). Plaintiffs argue that Certification under Rule 23 has been granted on lesser numbers than in the present case. See Jordan, 669 F.2d at 1319 (certifying separate classes, including one consisting of 39 members); Kazarov v. Achim, 2003 WL 22956006, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2003)(certifying a class of 10-17 incarcerated immigrants who could not afford counsel and were unable to speak English; however, the identity of any actual member was unknown and the members were geographically dispersed).
The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence of numerosity such that joining all putative members is impracticable, in large part because Plaintiffs seek injunctive and

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-6-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:3503

declaratory relief and also because many of the putative class members are minors or indigent. See Jordan, 669 F.2d at 1319. The fact that Plaintiffs are not seeking damages distinguishes the instant case from the cases Defendant cites finding insufficient numerosity.
3. Commonality (F.R.C.P. 23(a)(2))
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be either questions of law or fact common to the class. The members of the class do not have to share every question of law or fact in common, but “issues ... common to the class as a whole” must exist and “turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979). The Court may relax the commonality requirement where the plaintiffs are moving for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). See Von Collin v. County of Ventura, 189 F.R.D. 583, 591 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
Plaintiffs assert that commonality is satisfied because all members of the proposed class, as well as all plaintiffs, were (1) named as defendants in the State Action; (2) appeared or attempted to appear in that action; and (3) although voluntarily dismissed by the OCDA, are now bound by the terms of the Order. Mtn. at 17:8-14.
Plaintiffs assert that the common legal questions include (1) whether being subjected to the terms of the Order deprives an individual of a protected liberty; and (2) whether the individuals who were previously dismissed as defendants have been denied adequate procedural protections by now being subjected to the terms of the Order; in addition, all Plaintiffs seek the same equitable relief. Mtn. at 17:15-21.
Defendant asserts that there is no commonality because (1) each person named in the State Action had varying levels of involvement in the OVC; and (2) proper inclusion in the class would require a preliminary, individualized determination that Defendant’s actions deprived each individual prospective plaintiff of a liberty interest; particularly, there is a substantial likelihood that the putative class consists of persons who are on probation, and probation orders contain terms similar to those imposed by the Order. Opp. at 19:15-21:9. However, most of the cases cited by Defendant are cases in which the putative class sought damages, not merely an injunction. Thompson v. City of Chicago, 104 F.R.D. 404 (N.D. Ill. 1984)(class certification denied where plaintiffs sought monetary compensation on behalf of “all persons who have sustained physical injury as a proximate result of the civil rights violations alleged”); Klein v. DuPage County, 119 F.R.D. 29, 30 (N.D. Ill. 1988)(class certification denied where plaintiff inmates sought damages for strip and cavity searches made before and after court appearances).

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-7-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:3504
Plaintiffs also counter that the terms of the Order are broader and longer lasting than general probation orders. Rep. at 8:14-16.
Defendant does, however, provide some support for the assertion that even in cases seeking only injunctive relief, a class may not be certified where the court will be forced to make too many individualized determinations. See Fraga v. Smith, 607 F. Supp. 517 (D. Or. 1985)(class requesting injunctive relief decertified where court was required to make individualized determinations of whether delay in processing immigration applications was reasonable).
Despite Defendant’s assertion, the Court tentatively finds that there are sufficient questions of law and fact common to the putative classes. Plaintiffs’ assertion that members of the putative classes were deprived of a protected liberty interest without first being provided adequate procedural safeguard presents questions of law and fact common to the putative class. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1046 (9th Cir. 1998)("What makes the plaintiffs' claims suitable for a class action is the common allegation that the INS's procedures provide insufficient notice."). That there may be individual differences in the total amount of liberty lost among different class members is not a persuasive reason to defeat class certification, especially in a case not seeking damages.
4. Typicality (F.R.C.P. 23(a)(3))
Rule 23(a)(3) provides that claims and defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. “[A] named plaintiff's claim is typical if it stems from the same event, practice, or course of conduct that forms the basis of the class claims and is based upon the same legal or remedial theory.” Jordan, 669 F.2d at 1321.
Defendant asserts that the claims of the named Plaintiffs are not typical because an individual weighing of each potential plaintiffs’ factual claims is required in order to determine whether a constitutional violation occurred. Opp. at 23:3-5. Defendant again points to the existence of probation orders likely already restricting the liberty of putative class members. Opp. at 23:5-15.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert that like the proposed class members, the named Plaintiffs are subject to the terms of the Order without having been afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard as required by the Due Process Clause. Mtn. at 18:15-21.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-8-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:3505

The Court tentatively agrees with the Plaintiffs and finds that the fact that the named Plaintiffs and putative class members are subject to the same Order, and were dismissed from the same State Action, makes the named Plaintiffs sufficiently typical of their putative classes.
5. Adequacy (F.R.C.P. 23(a)(4))
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Plaintiffs assert that the class representatives and the class members have a common interest in not being subject to the terms of the Order without first having had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Plaintiffs further assert that no conflicts exist that could hinder the named Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue this lawsuit vigorously. Mtn. at 19:5-14.
Plaintiffs further assert that counsel is adequate because the attorneys for Plaintiffs have extensive experience in class actions and civil rights laws. Mtn. at 19:21-26.
Defendant argues that because there is no typicality of Plaintiffs’ claims, there can be no adequacy of representation. Opp. at 24:4-8; see In re Paxil Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 539, 550 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
Because there is sufficient typicality of the named Plaintiffs' claims, and because there are no substantial challenges to the adequacy of their counsel, the Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative classes.
6. Requirements of F.R.C.P. 23(b)(2)
Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Civil rights suits have been described as “the type of action for which the (b)(2) form was specifically designed.” Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
Plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the plain language of Rule 23(b)(2), in that they seek injunctive and declaratory relief barring Defendants from subjecting them to the terms of the Order without first affording

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-9-

Case 8:09-cv-01090-VBF-RNB Document 133 Filed 04/09/10 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:3506
Plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Mtn. at 20:12-14. They also note that they are bringing a civil rights suit, which is squarely within the purpose of Rule 23(b)(2), and that class actions help avoid mootness and facilitate enforcement of judgments. Mtn. at 20:1527. The Court tentatively agrees that Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for certification under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(2) for the reasons asserted by Plaintiffs.
7. Notice To Absent Class Members
Plaintiffs assert that because they seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), notice is not required at this time. Elliot v. Weinberger, 564 F.2d 1219, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1977), aff’d in relevant part, rev’d in part, 442 U.S. 682. Plaintiffs argue that because their claims are typical of those of the class as a whole and the plaintiffs are clearly adequate representatives of the class, notice at this time is not required. See Elliot, 564 F.2d at 1229 (notice not necessary for (b)(2) class where named plaintiffs are adequate representatives with experienced counsel). Defendant does not argue that notice should be required. The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs would not be required to give notice to putative class members prior to certification.
8. Opposition of Defendant Gustafson
Defendant Gustafson asserts that Plaintiff’s argument that the class is readily known to all parties does not apply to him, because there is no evidence put forth that the Orange Police Department was a party to the State Court action, or that it was represented by legal counsel in the State Action. Gustafson Opp. at 4:18-21.
Defendant Gustafson also asserts that the class definition makes the number of members purely speculative and without precise definition. Gustafson Opp. at 4:16-17.
The Court finds that the arguments added by Defendant Gustafson are not sufficiently persuasive to alter the Court’s tentative findings set forth above.

MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk

rs

-10-

 
 Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 1 of 51
(RNBx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division − Santa Ana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:09−cv−01090−VBF−RNB

Manuel Vasquez et al v. Tony Rackaukas et al Assigned to: Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block Related Case: 2:16−cv−07932−VAP−RAO Case in other court: 9th CCA, 11−55795
9th CCA, 11−55876 9th CCA, 11−56126 9th CCA, 11−56166 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff
Manuel Vasquez

Date Filed: 09/23/2009 Date Terminated: 05/10/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Belinda Escobosa Helzer ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1851 East First St, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714−450−3962 Fax: 714−543−5240 Email: bescobosahelzer@aclu−sc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hector O Villagra ACLU Foundation of Southern California 2140 West Chapman Avenue, Suite 209 Orange, CA 92868 714−450−3962 Fax: 714−450−3969 Email: hvillagra@aclu−sc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Bibring ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eight Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5299 Email: pbibring@aclu−sc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob S Kreilkamp Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−9260 Fax: 213−687−3702

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 2 of 51

Email: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph John Ybarra Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9194 Fax: 213−683−4094 Email: ybarrajj@gmail.com TERMINATED: 07/16/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Danielle Smolowe Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9100 Fax: 213−683−5162 Email: laura.smolowe@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina A Torres WilmerHale 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20006 202−663−6512 TERMINATED: 06/06/2011

Sarala Vidya Nagala Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission Street 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−512−4045 Email: sarala.nagala@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Miguel Bernal Lara

represented by Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph John Ybarra

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 3 of 51

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/16/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Danielle Smolowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina A Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2011

Sarala Vidya Nagala (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida

represented by Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph John Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/16/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Danielle Smolowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina A Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2011

Sarala Vidya Nagala (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Doe by and through his guardian ad litem JANE DOE, and all others similarly

represented by Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

situated

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 4 of 51
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hector O Villagra (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Bibring (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph John Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/16/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarala Vidya Nagala (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Tony Rackaukas Orange County District Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by S Frank Harrell Lynberg & Watkins 1100 West Town & Country Road Suite 1450 Orange, CA 92868 714−937−1010 Fax: 714−937−1003 Email: sharrell@lynberg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Clement Harman Office Of The Counsel County Of Orange 333 West Santa Ana Blvd Suite 407 P O Box 1379 Santa Ana, CA 92702−1379 714−834−5257 Fax: 714−834−2359 Email: james.harman@coco.ocgov.com TERMINATED: 10/07/2009
Melissa D Culp Lynberg & Watkins 1100 Town & Country Rd Suite 1450 Orange, CA 92868 714−937−1010 Fax: 714−937−1003 Email: mculp@lynberg.com

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 5 of 51

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert Gustafson Chief of Police, Orange Police Department, in his official capacity

represented by Wayne W Winthers Orange City Attorney Office Orange Civic Center 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866−1591 714−744−5580 Fax: 714−538−7157 Email: wwinthers@cityoforange.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa D Culp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Does 1 through 10, in their official and individual capacities,

Date Filed 09/23/2009
09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendants Tony Rackaukas, Robert Gustafson, Does.(Filing fee $ 350 paid) jury demand., filed by Plaintiff−Petitioners Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara.(twdb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2009: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (twdb). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2009: # 2 Complaint) (twdb). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2009: # 3 summons) (twdb). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
4 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order and order to Show Cause RE: Preliminary Injunction filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. Lodged order.(twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
5 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal the following (see document) filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara.(twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
6 MEMORANDUM in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
7 DECLARATION of Linda Marie Dominic in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
8 DECLARATION of Jane Doe in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (twdb). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
9 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal 5 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
10 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
13 DECLARATION of Manuel Vasquez in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (twdb). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
14 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida,

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 6 of 51

09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/24/2009
09/24/2009
09/25/2009 09/25/2009
09/25/2009

James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2009: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4) (twdb). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
15 DECLARATION of Gabriel Bastida in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (twdb) (twdb). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery), 1 as to defendants Tony Rackaukas, Robert Gustafson, Does. (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
41 SEALED DOCUMENT EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name. Lodged Order.(twdb) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
42 *SEAL DOCUMENT* DECLARATION of Lorraine Newhouse in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name 41 . (twdb) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
43 * SEALED DOCUMENT* MEMORANDUM in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name 41 . (twdb) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
44 *SEALED DOCUMENT* DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name 41 . (twdb) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
78 DECLARATION of Miguel Bernal Lara in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez and Miguel Bernal Lara. (lwag) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
2 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER RE PLAINTIFF−PETITIONERS (1) EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; (2) EX PARTE APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME; and (3) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Pursuant to the Courts procedures and schedules, the Defendants shall file oppositions to the Ex Parte Applications within 48 hours (or two court days) on or before noon on September 28, 2009. See www.cacd.uscourts.gov > Judges Procedures & Schedules > Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank. Paper courtesy copies of the opposition papers shall also be left with chambers by 2:00 pm on Monday, September 28, 2009. Counsel will then be notified if a hearing is set by the Court. Counsel for Plaintiff−Petitioners shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on defendants counsel by fax, email or personal delivery. (se) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
3 NOTICE OF REFERENCE TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Rules, the within action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Margaret M. Morrow and referred to Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further matters as appropriate. The Court must be notified within 15 days of any change of address. (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
16 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the document was attached and docketed to the wrong case number. Please disregard Re: Notice of Reference to a U.S. Magistrate Judge (H/C)(CV−84), Notice of Reference to a U.S. Magistrate Judge (H/C)(CV−84) 3 (twdb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
17 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, Defendant Does of (1) Ex Parte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; (2) Memo of Points & Authorities in Support of Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; (3) Declaration in Support of Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; (4) Declararation of Escobosa Helzer in Support of Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; (5) [Proposed] Order to Granting Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; (6) Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem; (7) [Proposed] Order Granting Guardian Ad Litem. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
18 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR. Due to a clerical error, docket entry #3 was docketed under case number SACV 09−1090−VBF(RNBx). The Notice of Reference to a U.S. Magistrate Judge is in reference to case number SACV

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 7 of 51

09/25/2009 09/25/2009
09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009

09−1099−MMM(PLA). (se) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 2 served on 09−24−2009. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
20 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal 5 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
21 Opposition Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Robert Gustafson, # 2 Declaration Joel Nigro)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
22 Objection to Evidence re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
23 Opposition Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal 5 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Opposition to File Documents Under Seal)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
24 Opposition Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal 5 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Opposition to Proceed Under Fictitious Name)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
25 Opposition Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 Notice of Lodging [proposed] Order filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Opposition to Temporary Restraining Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
26 Opposition opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
27 Opposition Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal 5 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
28 Request to Strike and Evidentiary Objections to Declarations Filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
29 DECLARATION of Detective J. Nigro re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 26 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
30 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs−Petitioners' Ex Parte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
31 NOTICE OF LODGING filed (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re: Opposition to Plaintiff−Petitioner's Ex Parte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name)(Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
32 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 2 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re: Opposition to Plaintiff−Petitioners' Ex Parte Application Temp. Restraining Order & OSC Re: Preliminary Injunc.)(Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
33 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 2 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re: Opposition to Plaintiff−Petitioners' Ex Parte Application to File Documents Under Seal)(Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
34 DECLARATION of Michael J. Hernandez Part one filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
35 DECLARATION filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 8 of 51

09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009
09/29/2009
09/29/2009

36 DECLARATION of Michael J. Hernandez Part Three filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
37 Proof OF SERVICE filed by defendant Tony Rackaukas, served on September 28, 2009. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
38 NOTICE of Errata filed by defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
39 OBJECTIONS to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
40 Proof OF SERVICE filed by defendant Tony Rackaukas, re Notice (Other) 38 , Objections − non−motion 39 served on September 29, 2009. (Harman, James) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
45 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff−Petitioner JAMES DOE, by and through his guardian ad litem, JANE DOE, to File Under Seal 5 is GRANTED. Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff−Petitioner JAMES DOE, by and through his guardian ad litem, JANE DOE, to Proceed Under Fictitious Name 4 is DENIED; The Court, however, finds sufficient grounds to set an Order to Show Cause re Proceeding Under Fictitious Name. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause shall be set for 11/5/2009 at 2:30 PM. Supplemental motion papers shall be filed and served by 10/6/2009; supplemental opposition papers shall be filed and served by 10/20/2009; and Reply papers shall be filed and served by 10/27/2009. Within the next three court days, counsel shall meet and confer to attempt to fashion a protective/confidentiality order and resolve issues presented by the Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name. Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff−Petitioners for Temporary RestrainingOrder 41 is DENIED without prejudice. For several reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Plaintiff−Petitioners did not make a sufficient showing in support of the relief requested. The Court, however, will set an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction hearing for 11/5/2009 at 2:30 PM. By 10/6/2009, the Petitioner−Plaintiffs shall file Motion papers including a proposed order which complies with Rule 65(d) of the FRCP. The Defendants shall then file opposition papers by 10/20/2009 and the Petitioner−Plaintiffs shall file reply papers by 10/27/2009 (see attached Minute Order for further details). (jp) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
46 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER. Counsel are hereby notified that a Scheduling Conference has been set for 12/7/2009 AT 8:30 AM. Lead Trial Counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court, including the Scheduling Conference. Counsel are directed to comply with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26−1 in a timely fashion and to file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report and a Notice of Settlement Procedure Selection Form ADR−1, on or before 11/30/2009. The Court requests that a mandatory chambers copy of the report be delivered to chambers by 12:00 p.m. the following day. If counsel fail to file the required Joint Rule 26(f) Report and a Notice of Settlement Procedure Selection form or fail to appear at the Scheduling Conference and such failure is not otherwise satisfactorily explained to the Court, the Court may take such action as it deems appropriate, such as monetary sanctions, or ultimately, dismissal or default. (jp) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
47 STANDING ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE AND ADDS TO THE LOCAL RULES. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL IMMEDIATELY SERVE THIS ORDER ON ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING ANY NEW PARTIES TO THE ACTION. IF THIS CASE WAS REMOVED FROM STATE COURT, THE DEFENDANT WHO REMOVED THE CASE SHALL SERVE THIS ORDER ON ALL OTHER PARTIES; Memoranda of points and authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed 25 pages. Replies shall not exceed 12 pages. Conformed courtesy copies of all papers filed with the Court, including those filed electronically, shall be delivered on the next day of filing, by 12 noon, to the drop box outside the Chambers of Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. The Judge's Chambers are located at the end of the hallway, past the courtroom. (see document for further details.) (jp) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 9 of 51

10/01/2009 10/01/2009
10/01/2009
10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009
10/06/2009
10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009 10/14/2009 10/16/2009

48 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference on Dec. 7, 2009 and Standing Order filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B, # 2 Proof of Service)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
49 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, upon Robert Gustafson served on 9/24/2009, answer due 10/14/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by State statute, upon Tricia Delrio, Administrative Specialist, City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration No. Original Summons no. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
50 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, upon Tony Rackaukas served on 9/24/2009, answer due 10/14/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by State statute, upon Yesenia, Authorized to Accept Service of Process. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons not returned. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
51 MEMORANDUM in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 (Supplemental) in Support of Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
52 Objections to Evidence Submitted by Defendant Tony Rackauckas and Defendant Robert Gustafson In Support of re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
53 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 (Supplemental) in Support of Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O and P, # 2 Exhibit Q − S, # 3 Exhibit T − X, # 4 Exhibit Y & Z, # 5 Exhibit AA & BB)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
54 NOTICE OF AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL TO ENTER INTO PROTECTIVE ORDER TO RESOLVE ISSUES PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF−PETITIONERS' APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name 41 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
55 REQUEST to Substitute attorney S. FRANK HARRELL in place of attorney JAMES C. HARMAN filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
56 REQUEST to Substitute Attorney filed by defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
57 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: granting 55 Request to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney S Frank Harrell for Tony Rackaukas. Attorney James Clement Harman terminated. (se) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
58 NOTICE of Entry of Order on Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney filed by defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harman, James) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
59 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 11/16/2009 re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Joint Stipulation)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
60 ORDER granting Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days) 59 : defendants Tony Rackaukas answer due 11/16/2009; Robert Gustafson answer due 11/16/2009; Does answer due 11/16/2009 by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Plaintiffs will then file and serve any Opposition on or before December 7, 2009. Defendants will thereafter prepare and file any Reply on or before December 21, 2009. (se)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 10 of 51

10/20/2009 10/20/2009
10/27/2009 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 10/27/2009
10/27/2009 10/28/2009 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 11/02/2009 11/04/2009
11/05/2009

(Entered: 10/19/2009)
61 OPPOSITION to Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunction OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joel Nigro)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
62 OPPOSITION to Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of S. Frank Harrell in Support of Opposition, # 2 Exhibit "A" in Support of Opposition, # 3 Exhibit "B" (part one) in Support of Opposition, # 4 Exhibit "B" (part two) in Support of Opposition, # 5 Declaration "B" (part three) in Support of Opposition, # 6 Exhibit "C" in Support of Opposition, # 7 Exhibit "D" and "E" in Support of Opposition)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
63 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Response in Opposition to Motion,, 62 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply Brief ISO PI)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
64 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − People v Nortenos, # 2 Exhibit B − Docket Statement, # 3 Exhibit C − People v Oakdale, # 4 Exhibit D− Docket Statement, # 5 Exhibit E − Chapter 5)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
65 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. Re: Request for Judicial Notice, 64 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
66 DECLARATION of Ashe & Helzer filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B, # 2 Exhibit C−D, # 3 Exhibit E−F, # 4 Exhibit G−H, # 5 Exhibit I−J, # 6 Exhibit K−L, # 7 Exhibit M−N, # 8 Exhibit O−P, # 9 Exhibit Q−R, # 10 Exhibit S−T, # 11 Exhibit U−V, # 12 Exhibit W−X, # 13 Exhibit Y−Z, # 14 Exhibit AA−BB, # 15 Exhibit CC)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
67 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation page number filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
68 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank granting Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Excess Pages 67 , that Plaintiff−Petitioners may file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction not to exceed thirty−five (35) pages. (jp) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
69 OBJECTIONS to Declaration (non−motion), Declaration (non−motion) 66 , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (non−motion) 65 , Request for Judicial Notice, 64 WITH REGARD TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
70 REPLY in support of Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
71 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank re OSC re Preliminary Injuction 51 . At the hearing on the OSC re Preliminary Injunction, oral argument on all issues raised in the papers will be invited. (kbr) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
72 OBJECTIONS to Declaration (non−motion), Declaration (non−motion) 66 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OBJECTION TO DECLARATIONS OF TYSON HELZER AND LINDA DOMENIC ASHE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
73 MINUTES Order to Show Cause re Proceeding Under Fictitious Name; Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction 45 before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Case called. The Court CONTINUES the hearing on both the Order to Show Cause re Proceeding

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 11 of 51

11/06/2009
11/10/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009 11/11/2009 11/12/2009
11/16/2009 11/16/2009
11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009

Under Fictitious Names and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction to 11/6/2010 at 10:00 AM. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
74 MINUTES Order to Show Cause re Proceeding Under Fictitious Name; Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Case called. The Court hears arguments from the Parties on the Order to Show Cause re Proceeding Under Fictitious Name. Upon the Plaintiffs' request, the Court continues the OSC re Fictitious Name to 12/7/2009 at 8:30 AM The Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental motion papers by 11/16/2009. and the Defendants shall file any opposition by 11/30/2009. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
75 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
76 [proposed] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 4 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
77 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS [PROPOSED] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Harrell, S) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
79 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Part of Miscellaneous Document 77 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. Motion set for hearing on 12/7/2009 at 08:30 AM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
80 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. This document appears to be an objection to a prior filing. Therefore it should have been filed under the Miscellaneous (non−motion) category. If this is a motion, the hearing time is incorrect, judge Fairbank hears motions at 1:30 and no memorandum of points and authorities was submitted. RE: MOTION to Strike Part of Miscellaneous Document 79 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (jp) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
81 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara of Memo of P& A and Declaration. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
82 OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara, of Documents Filed Under Seal: (1) Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Ex Parte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; (2) Declaration of Hector O Villagra in Support of Ex Parte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name served on 11/16/2009. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
83 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 1/11/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
84 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 1/11/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
87 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Hector O−Villagra in Support of Exparte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name. (Attachments: Part 2)(mat) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
88 SEALED DOCUMENT− Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Exparte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name. (mat) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
85 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: No Proposed Order was submitted RE: MOTION to

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 12 of 51

11/17/2009 11/19/2009 11/25/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009
12/01/2009

Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 84 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (kbr) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
86 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: re: Ruling on Submitted Matter: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 51 . After considerting the papers filed and counsel's oral arguments at the hearings on November 5 and 6, 2009, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the ground that the equitable relief sought is not appropriate. (kbr) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
89 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 84 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Defendant Orange County District Attorney's Motion to Dismiss)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
90 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 3 weeks, filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara.. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
91 OPPOSITION in opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name 41 Opposition to supplemental documents filed under SEAL (document 81) filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
92 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 86 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. Motion set for hearing on 12/21/2009 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
93 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION for Reconsideration re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 86 MOTION for Reconsideration re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 86 92 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. Motion set for hearing on 12/21/2009 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
94 OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed under Fictitious name 41 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Notice of Manual Filing)(Harrell, S). Modified on 12/1/2009 (jp). Modified on 12/8/2009 (jp). (Entered: 11/30/2009)
95 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas of NOTICE OF LODGING DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME and DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
96 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas of NOTICE OF LODGING DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S APPLICATION TO REMOVE OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME and DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S APPLICATION TO REMOVE OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO PROCEED UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME and [PROPOSED] ORDER. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
97 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Motion for Reconsideration 92 , 93 . Plaintiffs did not put this required statement in their Notice. Accordinlying, for noncomplaince with Local Rule 7−3, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (jp) (Entered: 12/01/2009)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 13 of 51

12/03/2009
12/07/2009
12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/18/2009

98 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, ORDERING Notice of Lodging Application to Remove Defendant/Respondent Orange County District Attorneys's Opposition to Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name from the Public Record and Place it Under Seal; Application to Remove Defendant/Respondent Orange County District Attorneys's Opposition to Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name from the Public Record and Place it Under Seal; (Proposed) Order Regarding Removing Defendant/Respondent Orange County District Attorney's Opposition to Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name From the Public Record and Placing it Under Seal; Notice of Lodging Opposition to Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; Opposition to Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name; submitted by Defendant Orange County District Attorney, received on 12/2/09 are not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: There is no protective order on the docket to file under seal. (mg) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
99 MINUTES OSC RE FICTITIOUS NAME; OSC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Case called. As more fully reflected in the Reporter's Notes, the Court denies Plaintiff James Doe's Ex Parte Application to Proceed Under Fictitious Name 41 , 74 . The Court finds that Plaintiffs privacy interest injuvenile records can be adequately protected by sealing the documents, and that there are insufficient grounds to permit the Plaintiff to proceed by a fictitious name. The Court orders the Parties to promptly meet and confer to file a stipulated protective order or a motion for protective order with the Magistrate Judge. The Court sets the following schedule for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Motion for Class Certification Filed By 3/15/2010; Opposition to Class Certification Motion Filed By 3/29/2010; Reply for Class Certification filed By 4/5/2010; Hearing on Motion for Class Certification 4/19/2010 at 1:30 PM. The Court sets the following schedule in this case: Trial 11/9/2010 at 8:30 AM; Final Pretrial Conference 10/18/2010 at 2:30 PM; Motion Filing cut−Off 8/16/2010; Non−Expert Discovery cut−off 7/12/2010; Expert Discovery Cut−off 8/16/2010; Expert Disclosures pursuant to the Parties' stipulation or FRCP 26; Settlement Conference Held By 3/1/2010. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (jp) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
100 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 84 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
101 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case 83 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
102 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REVISE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
103 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, re Exparte Application 102 : Responses due by 12/18/2009, Replies due by 1/11/2010. Motions 83 , 84 rescheduled for hearing on 1/20/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (se) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
104 Opposition to Ex Parte Motion filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson re: Miscellaneous Document 102 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
105 OPPOSITION to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Revise the Briefing Schedule re Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
106 AMENDED ORDER TO REVISE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank re Order, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines 103 : Hearing on MOTIONS TO DISMISS 83 , 84 is rescheduled to 1/20/10 at 3:00 pm. (se) Modified on 12/18/2009 (se). (Entered: 12/17/2009)
107 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER RE: Plaintiffs−Petitioners Ex Parte Application to Revise the Briefing Scheduling re Motions to Dismiss 102 . The Court vacates its previous Orders (dkt 3103, #106). Instead, the Court orders the PlaintiffsPetitioners to file an Opposition by 12/18/2009

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 14 of 51

12/18/2009 12/18/2009 01/15/2010 01/18/2010 01/20/2010 01/21/2010
01/21/2010
01/22/2010 02/04/2010 02/08/2010
02/10/2010

and the Defendants to file their Replies by 1/18/2010. The Court continues the hearing on the MOTIONS to Dismiss 83 , 84 from 1/11/2010 at 1:30 PM., to 1/25/2010 at 1:30 PM. (jp) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
108 Opposition in opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 84 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
109 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss Case 83 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
110 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 83 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
111 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 84 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
112 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
113 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER RE: Motion to Dismiss Entire Action by Defednant Robert Gustafson (FRCP 12(b)) 83 . Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7−15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 1/25/2010 at 1:30 PM., IS vacated AND THE MATTER TAKEN off−calendar. After reading the papers filed, this Court DENIES Defendant Gustafsons Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice to the Defendant's right to raise the issues later in this litigation upon a fuller record. The Defendant shall file an answer within 20 days. (jp) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
114 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER RE: Orange County District Attorney's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant (FRCP 12(b)) 84 . Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7−15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 1/25/2010 at 1:30 PM., is VACATED and the matter taken OFF−CALENDAR. After reading the papers filed, this Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice to the Defendant's right to raise the issues later in this litigation upon a fuller record. The Defendant shall file an answer within 20 days. (jp) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
115 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. (See Order for details) (db) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
116 REQUEST for Order for Scheduling Settlement Conference filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Manuel Vasquez, Miguel Bernal Lara. Request set for hearing on 3/1/2010 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Scheduling Settlement Conference)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
117 MINUTES OF Telephonic Conference held before Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. The Court advises that the purpose of the telephonic conference is to discuss the advisability of proceeding with the settlement conference at this juncture of the litigation. The Court further advises that it hasconfirmed with the District Judge that it retains the discretion not to proceed with the settlement conference by the previously−imposed deadline of March 1, 2010 if it does not appear to the Court that a settlement conference at this juncture would likely be conducive to resolving the matter. After exploring with the parties what their positions are, the Court confirms its supposition that the parties settlement positions are irreconcilable, and that proceeding with the settlement conference under the circumstances would not be a productive use of the Courts or the parties time. Counsel for the County represents that he will pass on to his client the Courts comments about the litigation. Tape #: CourtSmart. (db) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
118 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson.(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 15 of 51

02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/11/2010 03/15/2010
03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/29/2010 03/29/2010
04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/09/2010

119 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas.(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
120 STIPULATION for Consideration of Setting Expert Disclosures filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Stipulation)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
121 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank GRANTING Stipulation to Set Expert Discloures 120 . (se) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
122 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Class Certification)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
123 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
124 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in support of MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
125 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−O, # 2 Exhibit P−DD, # 3 Exhibit EE−HH, # 4 Exhibit II−NN)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
126 DECLARATION of Hector O Villagra in support of MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
127 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 122 AMENDED filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
128 OPPOSITION in Opposition re: MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
129 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp In Support of Opposition, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 3 Exhibit B (part one) to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 4 Exhibit B (part two) to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 11 Exhibit I to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 12 Exhibit J to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
130 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
131 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer (Supplemental) in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 122 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E and F)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
132 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Certify Class 122 (Supplemental) filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E, # 2 Exhibit F − N, # 3 Exhibit O −Z, # 4 Exhibit AA−QQ)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
133 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: re: Tentative Ruling on Motion for Class Certification 123 . (kbr) (Entered: 04/09/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 16 of 51

04/16/2010 04/19/2010
05/21/2010 05/24/2010
06/14/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010
06/15/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010 07/07/2010 07/12/2010

134 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jacob S Kreilkamp on behalf of Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
135 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The Court referred to its Tentative Ruling dated April 8, 2010 (dt.#133) and took the matter under submission. After further consideration of the papers filed and counsels' oral arguments, the Court adopts its Tentative Ruling and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (bp) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
136 STIPULATION for Consideration of Taking the Deposition of Plaintiff and Inmate Gabriel Bastida filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Stipulation)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
137 ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson GRANTING Stipulation to Take the Deposition of Plaintiff and inmate, Gabriel Bastida 136 In consideration of the submitted stipulation and good cause appearing therefore, the Court now rules as follows: The deposition of the inmate Gabriel Bastida will take place on a date, time, and place to be agreed upon by the parties and the Theo Lacy Jail Facility. If a date, time and place cannot be agreed upon, then the deposition date will be set by the Court. (jp) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
138 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laura D. Smolowe In Support, # 2 Declaration of Marina A. Torres in Support of, # 3 Proposed Order)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
139 Opposition Opposition re: EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel 138 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
140 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas of Application and Proposed Order to File Stipulation for Protective Order Under Seal, Stipulation and Proposed Order for Protective Order. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
141 OPPOSITION to EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel 138 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
142 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF−PETITIONERS' Ex Parte Application for an Order Extending the Time to File Motions to Compel 138 . Grounds for ex parte relief, including urgency and due diligence have not been adequately shown. (see attached Minute Order for further information). (jp) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
143 SEALED DOCUMENT − DEFENDANT TONY RACKAUCKAS' APPLICATION to File Stipulation for Protective Order Under Seal; [Proposed] Order (jp) Modified on 6/22/2010 (rla). (Entered: 06/16/2010)
144 REQUEST for Removal of DOCUMENT filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order TO REQUEST TO REMOVE DOCUMENT FROM PACER AND PLACE UNDER SEAL)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
145 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block: RE Defendant Tony Rackauckas' Request to Remove Document from Pacer and Place Under Seal. The Court, having reviewed the substance of Defendant's Request 144 and supporting declaration, hereby grants Defendant's request as follows: Docket No. 143 is hereby ordered removed from PACER and filed under seal. (rla) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
146 SEALED DOCUMENT − MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Robert N. Block (rla) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
147 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Stipulation)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
148 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. (See Order for details) (db) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 17 of 51

07/21/2010 08/16/2010
08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010

149 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Sarala Vidya Nagala on behalf of Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez (Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
150 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Appointment of Counsel NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DESIGNATE MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP AS CO−CLASS COUNSEL AND TO AMEND PREVIOUS CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 9/13/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support Of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion To Designate Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP As Co−Class Counsel And To Amend Previous Class Certification Order, # 2 Declaration of Joseph J.Ybarra In Support Of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion To Designate Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP As Co−Class Counsel And To Amend Previous Class Certification Order.pdf, # 3 Declaration Belinda Escobosa Helzer In Support Of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion To Designate Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP As Co−Class Counsel And To Amend Previous Class Certification Order.pdf, # 4 Proposed Order Designating Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP As Co−Class Counsel And Amending Class Certification Order.pdf)(Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
151 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne Winthers, # 2 Exhibit A to Decl. of Wayne Winthers, # 3 Exhibit B−I to Decl. of Wayne Winthers, # 4 Stmnt of Uncontroverted Facts, # 5 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
152 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Proposed Order (Proposed Judgment), # 3 Proposed Order (Proposed Statement of Decision))(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
153 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
154 STATEMENT of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
155 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer In Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−8, # 3 Exhibit 9−11, # 4 Exhibit 12−13 (part 1), # 5 Exhibit 13 (part 2) − 14, # 6 Exhibit 15−17, # 7 Exhibit 18−23, # 8 Exhibit 24−30, # 9 Exhibit 31−35, # 10 Exhibit 36−40, # 11 Exhibit 41−42b, # 12 Exhibit 42c−43d, # 13 Exhibit 43e−44, # 14 Exhibit 45−54)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
156 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−15, # 3 Exhibit 16−43)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
157 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 (AMENDED) filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−15, # 3 Exhibit 16−43, # 4 Exhibit 44−57, # 5 Exhibit 58, # 6 Exhibit 59−63, # 7 Exhibit 64−65)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 18 of 51

08/16/2010
08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010
08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010

158 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Proposed Order (Proposed Judgment), # 3 Proposed Order (Proposed Statement of Decision))(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
159 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
160 STATEMENT of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
161 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer In Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−8, # 3 Exhibit 9−11, # 4 Exhibit 12−13 (part 1), # 5 Exhibit 13 (part 2) − 14, # 6 Exhibit 15−17, # 7 Exhibit 18−23, # 8 Exhibit 24−30, # 9 Exhibit 31−35, # 10 Exhibit 36−40, # 11 Exhibit 41−42b, # 12 Exhibit 42c−43d, # 13 Exhibit 43e−44, # 14 Exhibit 45−54)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
162 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−15, # 3 Exhibit 16−43, # 4 Exhibit 44−57, # 5 Exhibit 58, # 6 Exhibit 59−63, # 7 Exhibit 64−65)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
163 Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Statement of Decision)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
164 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues, MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
165 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 (Harrell, Shelton) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
166 Exhibits A−G to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: Miscellaneous Document, 165 (Harrell, Shelton) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
167 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit H to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Harrell, Shelton) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
168 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit J−K to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Harrell, Shelton) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
169 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit L to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Harrell, Shelton) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
170 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Corrected Table of Contents, Table of Authorities and Signature Page re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 19 of 51

08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010
08/17/2010
08/17/2010

171 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit R to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
172 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit S−T to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
173 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit U−Z to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
174 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit AA−CC to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
175 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit DD to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
176 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit EE to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
177 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit FF−GG to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
178 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit HH to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
179 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit II to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
180 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit JJ to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
181 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Exhibit M−Q to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration as to Miscellaneous Document, 165 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
182 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibits 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Case number and Title page are missing. The correct event is: Exhibit to Motion − Under Category − Response, Replies, and Other Motion Related Documents. Other error(s) with document(s): Local Rule 11−3.8 Lacking name, address, phone, facsimile numbers and E−Mail Address. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (jp) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
183 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I part one to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration, # 2 Exhibit I part two to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration, # 3 Exhibit I part three to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration, # 4 Exhibit I part four to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration, # 5 Exhibit I part five to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration, # 6 Exhibit I part six to Melissa D. Culp's Declaration)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
184 Proof of Service of UNREDACTED versions of Documents filed on August 16, 2010 re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 , MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 (Escobosa Helzer,

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 20 of 51

08/17/2010 08/17/2010
08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 09/03/2010
09/03/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010

Belinda) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
185 NOTICE of Errata filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
186 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The Court has considered Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to designate the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as co−class counsel along with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and to amend the Courts previous class certification to reflect that designation 150 . The Court ORDERS that the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, through its attorneys Joseph Ybarra, Jacob Kreilkamp, Laura Smolowe, Marina Torres, and Sarala Nagala, be designated as co−class counsel under FRCP 23(g) along with Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Peter Bibring, and Hector Villagra of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. The Court hereby AMENDS its class certification order of 4/19/2010 to reflect the designation of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as co−class counsel. (jp) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
187 NOTICE of Errata filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
188 NOTICE of Errata filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Declaration of Wayne Winthers (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B−I)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
189 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Statement of Decision re MOTION for Summary Judgment 151 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Statement of Decision)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
190 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant OCDA's Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact, # 2 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 5 Exhibit C−D to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 6 Exhibit E−G to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 7 Exhibit H to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 8 Exhibit I−Q to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 9 Exhibit R−V to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 10 Exhibit W−Z to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition, # 11 Exhibit AA−II to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
191 OBJECTION In Opposition re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
192 Objection opposition re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 Evidentiary Objections to Declarations and Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
193 OPPOSITION in Opposition re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Wayne Winthers, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Decl. of Wayne Winthers, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to I of Decl. of Wayne Winthers, # 4 Opposition to Stmnt of Uncontroverted Facts)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
194 OBJECTION in opposition re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 Objection to Evidence filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
195 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Summary Judgment 151 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Supplement, # 3 Declaration)(Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 21 of 51

09/07/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010 09/09/2010 09/14/2010 09/16/2010 09/16/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010
09/20/2010 09/20/2010

196 Opposition opposition re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Declaration Peter Bibring in support, # 3 Exhibit to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit to Declaration)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
197 Opposition opposition re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 Amended Filing filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Declaration Peter Bibring, # 3 Exhibit Ex 1 to Bibring Dec, # 4 Exhibit Ex 2 to Bibring Dec)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
198 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. correcting Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 196 (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
199 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez, re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 197 Unredacted Statement of Genuine Issues served on 09−08−10. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
200 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Final Pretrial Conference filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
201 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank GRANTING Stipulation to Reschedule Pretrial Conference 200 : Joint Telephone Conference re final Pretrial Conference and Trial set for 9/16/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (se) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
202 NOTICE of Change of address by Melissa D Culp attorney for Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Changing attorneys address to 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1450, Orange, CA 92868. Filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
209 MINUTES OF Telephone Status Conference held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Court and counsel discuss the status of the case and the Final PretrialConference schedule. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court continues the Pretrial Conference to 11/8/2010 at 2:30 PM. The Trial remains on calendar for 11/9/2010. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (jp) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
203 REPLY In Support Of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
204 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 (Supplemental) filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
205 Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to Declarations and Exhibits Filed by Defendant Rackauckas in Support of Defendant's Opposition to re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Rackauckas 152 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 (Part 2), # 2 (Part 3))(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
206 REPLY In Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment 151 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Objection to Evidence, # 2 Opposition to Statement of Facts)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
207 Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to Declarations and Exhibits Filed by Defendant Gustafson in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Opposition re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 22 of 51

09/20/2010 09/21/2010 09/21/2010
09/23/2010 09/27/2010 10/07/2010 10/07/2010 10/07/2010 10/07/2010 10/07/2010 10/07/2010 10/08/2010

208 REPLY In Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Gustafson 158 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
210 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. correcting Request for Judicial Notice, Request for Relief,, 157 , Request for Judicial Notice, Request for Relief,, 162 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 61)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
211 REPLY Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Issues MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 164 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE CITED BY PLAINTIFFS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, # 2 Supplement Defendant's Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Facts re Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
212 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquezto Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 193 Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendant Gustafson's Additional Material Facts (Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
213 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: denying 151 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 152 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 158 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 164 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 164 Motion for Summary Adjudication. (kbr) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
214 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
215 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of James Diego Vigil filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
216 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of Jorja Manos Leap filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
217 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of James Hernandez filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
218 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson of Exhibit A to Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers RE: Defendant Gustafson's Motion in limine #4 to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony of James Hernandez − FILED UNDER SEAL. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
219 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson of Request to Take Judicial Notice in Support of Defendant Gustafson's Motion in limine #4 to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony of James Hernandez − FILED UNDER SEAL. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
220 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez of Expert Reports of Hernandez and O'Deane as Exhibits to Bibring Declaration iso Plaintiffs' MIL #3. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered:

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 23 of 51

10/08/2010
10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010
10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010

10/08/2010)
221 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE #5 to Preclude Defendants from Calling Plaintiffs' Counsel Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Hector Villagra and Peter Bibring as Witnesses at Trial filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #5, # 2 Declaration of Belinda Escobosa Helzer)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
222 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank.(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
223 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank.(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
224 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, James Diego Vigil filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank.(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
225 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Malcol Klein filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank.(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
226 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank.(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
227 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT Rorbert Gustafson's denying Motions in Limine 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court does not find compliance with Local Rule 7−3 for any of the Motions. Accordingly, the Motions are hereby DENIED, withoutprejudice to re−filing in compliance with L.R. 7−3. (jp) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
228 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION IN LIMINE #5 to Preclude Defendants from Calling Plaintiffs' Counsel Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Hector Villagra and Peter Bibring as Witnesses at Trial 221 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
229 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laura Smolowe ISO Motion in Limine 7, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A−G of Smolowe Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits H−J of Smolowe Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order Granting Motion in Limine 7)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
230 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. correcting Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 220 (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
231 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez of Motion in Limine. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
232 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marina A. Torres ISO Plaintiffs' MIL1, # 2

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 24 of 51

10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010
10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010

Proposed Order Granting MIL 1)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
233 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RACKAUCKAS MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, DR. JORJA MANOS LEAP re MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap 222 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
234 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RACKAUCKAS MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, PROFESSOR JAMES HERNANDEZ re MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez 223 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
235 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RACKAUCKAS MOTION IN LIMINE #3 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, PROFESSOR JAMES DIEGO VIGIL re MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, James Diego Vigil 224 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
236 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RACKAUCKAS MOTION IN LIMINE #4 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, DR. MALCOLM KLEIN re MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Malcol Klein 225 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
237 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RACKAUCKAS MOTION IN LIMINE #5 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS AS TO ISSUES UNANSWERED AT DEPOSITION ON GROUNDS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE re MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege 226 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
238 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 3 filed under seal re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 231 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for Motion in Limine #3)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
239 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by Plaintiff−Petitioners Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 2:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order)(Nagala, Sarala). Modified on 10/12/2010 (jp). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
240 DECLARATION of Sarala V. Nagala In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities 239 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
241 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE #6 to Exclude Evidence or Argument re Post−Deprivation Remedies filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #6)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
242 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marina Torres ISO Motion

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 25 of 51

10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010 10/12/2010
10/12/2010

for Limine No. 8, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion in Limine No. 8)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
243 OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez, re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 231 Notice of Motion and P's MIL #3 served on October 8, 2010. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
244 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marina A. Torres ISO Motion In Limine No. 2, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion in Limine No. 2)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
253 SEALED DOCUMENT− NOTICE OF MOTION and Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No.3 to Exclude Defendant's Expert Witness Matthew O'Deane; Declaration of Peter Bibring in Support Thereof. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)(mat) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
245 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #1) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers, # 2 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
246 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #2) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Diego Vigil filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers, # 2 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
247 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #3) to Exclude Exlude Testimony of Expert Witness Jorja Manos Leap filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers, # 2 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
248 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #4) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Hernandez filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers, # 2 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
249 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson of Exhibit A to Amended Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Witness James Hernandez. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
250 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson of Amended Request to Take Judicial Notice in Support of Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Witness James Hernandez. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
251 NOTICE OF LODGING filed PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GUSTAFSON'S REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 250 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
252 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: [PROPOSED] ORDER 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice of Lodging − under Category "Notice". Other error(s) with document(s): This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to the Motions or a Notice of Lodging. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (jp) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
254 SEALED DOCUMENT− Expert Report of Prof. James Hernandez.(mat) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 26 of 51

10/12/2010 10/13/2010
10/13/2010
10/14/2010 10/14/2010
10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010

255 SEALED DOCUMENT− Defendant Robert Gustafson's Amended Request to Take Judicial Notice in Support of Motion in Limine No. 4. (mat) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
256 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson, re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92), Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 218 , Notice of Manual Filing (G−92), Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 219 Sealed Exhibit A to Motion in Limine No. 4 and Sealed Request to Take Judicial Notice served on October 8, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 on Defendant Rackauckas)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
257 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson, re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 249 , Motion Related Document 255 , Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 250 , Report 254 Sealed Exhibit A to Motion in Limine No. 4 and Sealed Request to Take Judicial Notice served on October 11, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 on Defendant Rackauckas)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
258 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules 244 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
259 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities 239 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
260 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE #6 to Exclude Evidence or Argument re Post−Deprivation Remedies 241 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
261 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE #5 to Preclude Defendants from Calling Plaintiffs' Counsel Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Hector Villagra and Peter Bibring as Witnesses at Trial 221 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
262 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. correcting Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 240 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sarala V. Nagala In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine No. 4)(Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
263 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation 232 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
264 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance 242 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
265 Witness List filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson.. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
266 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude 253 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #3 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
267 **THIS DOCUMENT REMOVED, PER ORDER DATED 10/20/2010, DOCUMENT NUMBER 298*** Witness List filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Main Document 267 replaced on 10/21/2010) (jp). Modified on 10/21/2010 (jp). (Entered: 10/18/2010)
268 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony 229 filed by

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 27 of 51

10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010

Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
269 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance 242 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
270 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance 242 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
271 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony 229 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
272 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE #6 to Exclude Evidence or Argument re Post−Deprivation Remedies 241 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
273 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities 239 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules 244 to Exclude Expert Witness James Hernandez filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
274 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE #5 to Preclude Defendants from Calling Plaintiffs' Counsel Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Hector Villagra and Peter Bibring as Witnesses at Trial 221 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
275 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities 239 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
276 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. correcting Response in Opposition to Motion, 269 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
277 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege 226 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
278 ***THIS DOCUMENT REMOVED, PER ORDER DATED 10/20/2010, DOCUMENT NUMBER 298*** JOINT Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of all Parties Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Main Document 278 replaced on 10/21/2010) (jp). Modified on 10/21/2010 (jp). (Entered: 10/18/2010)
279 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
280 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude 253 #3 filed UNDER SEAL filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
281 AMENDED OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez MOTION IN

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 28 of 51

10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010

LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez 223 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of James Hernandez MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of James Hernandez 217 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
282 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
283 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules 244 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
284 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation 232 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
285 Witness List filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas.. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
286 Opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, James Diego Vigil 224 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of Jorja Manos Leap MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of Jorja Manos Leap 216 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of James Diego Vigil MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Expert Witness testimony of James Diego Vigil 215 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap 222 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Malcol Klein 225 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein 214 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration iso Opposition, # 2 Exhibit Ex A − Klein Report, # 3 Exhibit Ex B − Vigil Report, # 4 Exhibit Ex C − Leap Report, # 5 Exhibit Ex D − H)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
287 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
288 REDACTED Joint Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
289 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez of Application to File Under Seal, Declarations of Jacob S. Kreilkamp and Exhibit; Marina A. Torres Declaration and Exhibits, Proposed Order, Proof of Service. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
290 Witness List filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
291 APPLICATION for Order for Removing Documents 267 and 278 from PACER filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Application to Remove Documents 267 and 278 from PACER)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
292 APPLICATION to File Under Seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jacob S. Kreilkamp and Exhibits C and D to the Declaration of Marina A. Torres, filed by Plaintiffs. Lodged Proposed Order. (kbr) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
293 DECLARATION of JACOB S. KREILKAMP in support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Rackauckas's MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein 223 and MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Hernandez 248 , filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (jp) Modified on 10/28/2010 (jp). (Entered: 10/19/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 29 of 51

10/19/2010
10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010
10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/20/2010
10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/25/2010
10/25/2010 10/25/2010

294 DECLARATION of MARINA A. TORRES in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Rackauckas' MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege 226 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (jp) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
295 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez, re APPLICATION to Seal Exhibit 1 292 , Declaration of Jacob S. Kreilkamp 293 , Declaration of Marina A. Torres 294 served on 10/18/2010. (jp) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
300 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank granting Application to File Under Seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jacob S. Kreilkamp and Exhibits C and D to the Declaration of Marina A. Torres 292 . (jp) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
301 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Jacob S. Kreilkamp in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Rackaucks's Motion in Limine No. 2 and Defendant Gustafson's Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Witness James Hernandez. Exhibit 1 filed Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order of July 12, 2010. (mat) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
302 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Marina A. Torres in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Rackauckas' Motion in Limine 5.(mat) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
303 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Marina A. Torres in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Rackauckas' Motion in Limine 5.(mat) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
298 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank that the Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs' Application to Remove Documents 267 and 278 from PACER 291 , hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs application as follows: Docket Nos. 267 and 278 (Plaintiffs' Witness List and Joint Exhibit List) are ordered removed from the PACER system. (jp) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
296 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Gabriel Bastida filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Gabriel Bastida, # 2 Proposed Order to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Gabriel Bastida)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
297 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Randy Bastida filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Randy Bastida, # 2 Proposed Order Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Randy Bastida)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
299 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Randy Bastida 297 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Gabriel Bastida 296 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
310 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Granting EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Gabriel Bastida 296 for Gabriel Bastida to testify on 11/16/10 at 8:30 am before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (kbr) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
311 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Granting EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Randy Bastida 297 for Randy Bastida to testify on 11/16/10 at 8:30 am before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (kbr) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
304 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE #5 to Preclude Defendants from Calling Plaintiffs' Counsel Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Hector Villagra and Peter Bibring as Witnesses at Trial 221 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Supplemental) of Belinda Escobosa Helzer)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
305 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude 253 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Klein Depo Extracts)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
306 REPLY filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez to MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony;

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 30 of 51

10/25/2010 10/25/2010
10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010

Memorandum of Points & Authorities MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Preclude Percipient Witnesses Michael Hernandez, John Maxfield and John Anderson from Offering Expert Testimony; Memorandum of Points & Authorities 239 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE #4 (Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
307 REPLY Repy In Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Preclude Detective Joel Nigro from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony 229 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
308 REPLY IN SUPPORT MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #2) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Diego Vigil MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #2) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Diego Vigil 246 , MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #3) to Exclude Exlude Testimony of Expert Witness Jorja Manos Leap MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #3) to Exclude Exlude Testimony of Expert Witness Jorja Manos Leap 247 , MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #1) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #1) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Malcolm W. Klein 245 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
309 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #4) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Hernandez MOTION IN LIMINE (Amended #4) to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness James Hernandez 248 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
312 REPLY in Support of MOTION IN LIMINE #6 to Exclude Evidence or Argument re Post−Deprivation Remedies 241 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
313 REPLY In Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Criminal History and Alleged Gang Affiliation 232 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
314 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Existence of OVC as a Street Gang or Public Nuisance 242 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
315 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Any Evidence Barred by Discovery Rules 244 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
316 REPLY In Support of MIL #5 MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege 226 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
317 REPLY In Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Professor James Hernandez 223 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
318 REPLY in Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Testimony as to Issues Unanswered During Deposition on Grounds of Fifth Amendment Privilege 226 AMENDED filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
319 REPLY In Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Malcol Klein 225 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, James Diego Vigil 224 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 31 of 51

10/26/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/29/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010
11/02/2010
11/02/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010

Exclude Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jorja Manos Leap 222 to Plaintiffs' Cosolidated Opposition filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
320 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
321 SUPPLEMENTAL Exhibit List filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson.. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
322 SUPPLEMENTAL Exhibit List filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas.. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
323 Request for Court Inspection of Injunction Area (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
324 STATUS REPORT re Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
325 NOTICE OF LODGING Proposed Pretrial Conference Order Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Conference Order)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
326 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Notice of Lodging Proposed Pretrial Order 325 (Attachments: # 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
327 NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas (Attachments: # 1 [PROPOSED] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
328 Joint PRETRIAL STIPULATION regarding Exhibits. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
329 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Part One) filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1−3, # 3 Exhibit 4−6, # 4 Exhibit 7−9, # 5 Exhibit 10−12, # 6 Exhibit 13−18, # 7 Exhibit 19−33, # 8 Exhibit 34−49, # 9 Exhibit 50, part 1, # 10 Exhibit 50, part 2, # 11 Exhibit 51−57, # 12 Exhibit 58−69, # 13 Exhibit 70−78, # 14 Exhibit 79, # 15 Exhibit 80−85, # 16 Exhibit 86−88, # 17 Exhibit 89−94, # 18 Exhibit 95−98, # 19 Exhibit 99−104)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
330 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Part Two) filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 105−110, # 2 Exhibit Ex 111−114, # 3 Exhibit Ex 115−119, # 4 Exhibit Ex 120−130, # 5 Exhibit Ex 132−133, # 6 Exhibit Ex 134 part 1, # 7 Exhibit Ex 134 part 2, # 8 Exhibit Ex 134 part 3, # 9 Exhibit Ex 134 part 4, # 10 Exhibit Ex 135−137, # 11 Proposed Order Granting Request for Judicial Notice)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
331 TRIAL BRIEF filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson.. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
332 NOTICE of Payment of Deposition Costs From the Transcript Reimbursement Fund filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
333 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas.. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
334 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/02/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 32 of 51

11/02/2010 11/04/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010
11/08/2010 11/08/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/15/2010 11/15/2010

335 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW re Notice of Lodging Proposed Pretrial Order 325 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
336 OBJECTIONS to Miscellaneous Document 323 Plaintiffs' Request for Court Inspection of Injunction Area filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
337 First Amended Joint Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
338 OPPOSITION to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice for Trial filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
340 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 229 , 232 , 239 , 241 , 242 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 253 . Plaintiffs Motions In Limine Nos. 1−8 (Dkts. 221, 229, 232, 239, 241, 242, 244, 253) (See attached Minute Order for further information). Defendants Motions In Limine [Rackauckas Motions Nos. 1−5 (Dkts. 222−226); Gustafson Motions Nos. 1−4 (Dkts. 245−248)]. (See attached Minute Order for further information). (jp) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
339 JOINDER filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson joining in Response in Opposition to Motion 338 . (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
341 MINUTES OF Final Pretrial Conference held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank:court and counsel discuss trial issues. Post trial briefs shall be filed no later than 1/15/11.Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (se) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
342 TRIAL BRIEF Notice of Lodging of Plaintiffs' Deposition Transcripts filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Lodging of Plaintiffs' Index of Deposition Designations Pursuant To Local Rule 16−2.7(C))(Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
343 OPPOSITION to Plaintiff's Annotated Deposition Transcript Designations filed by Defendants Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) Modified on 11/10/2010 (kbr). (Entered: 11/09/2010)
345 MINUTES OF COURT TRIAL (1st Day) held before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Opening statements made. Witneses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Court Trial continued to 11/10/2010 at 08:30 AM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams/Nichole Rhynard. (se) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
344 JOINDER filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson joining in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition (non−motion) 343 . (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
346 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Consideration of Joint Motion to Preclude Trial Testimony from Unnamed Class Members filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
353 MINUTES (2nd day) Court Trial Held and Continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Case continued to 11/16/2010 at 8:30 AM. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams (AM)/Nichole Rhynard (PM). (jp) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
347 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION for Consideration of Joint Motion to Preclude Trial Testimony from Unnamed Class Members 346 filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Belinda Escobosa Helzer In Support of Opposition to Motion to Preclude Testimony)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
348 APPLICATION for Order for to Seal Portions of Trial Transcript filed by Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez. Application set for hearing on 11/16/2010 at 08:30 AM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marina A. Torres in Support of Application, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Application)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 33 of 51

11/15/2010 11/16/2010 11/16/2010
11/17/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010
11/17/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010

349 REQUEST for Order for Release of Sealed Trial Transcripts filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Request)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
350 REQUEST for Consideration of To Modify This Court's Order of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, # 2 Proposed Order to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
355 MINUTES OF (3rd day) Court Trial held and continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Case continued to 11/17/2010 at 8:30 AM. Court and counsel confer regarding the parties proposed orders on motions to seal trial transcripts and Defendants joint motion to preclude trial testimony from unnamed class members. The Court finds no grounds to exclude witnesses at this time and Plaintiff motion is therefore denied. The motions will be further ruled on by separate order. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard (AM)/Rosalyn Adams (PM). (jp) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
351 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS Application o Seal Portions of Trial Transcript 348 . The Application seeks to seal portions of the trial transcript "regarding (1) juvenile criminal history and (2) matters objected to on safety grounds." Notice at lines 7−8. The Application is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to request sealing of more specific portions of the trial transcript. (See Minute Order for further information). (jp) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
352 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: ORDER RE DEFENDANTS RACKAUCKAS AND GUSTAFSON JOINT Motion to Preclude Trial Testimony from Unnamed Class Members 346 . Defendants seek an order precluding Plaintiffs from offering trial testimony of the unnamed members in Plaintiffs class. For reasons set forth in the Opposition, the Motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to Defendants right to object during trial, as appropriate. (See attached Minute Order for further information). (jp) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
356 MINUTES OF (4th day) Court Trial held and continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Case continued to 11/18/2010 at 8:30 AM. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding duplicative exhibits and provide the court with a chart summarizing duplicate exhibits by the conclusion of trial and prior to closing arguments and submission of briefs. Further, the parties shall meet and confer regarding Plaintiff Request for judicial notice as to witness Miguel Hernandez. The Court also tentatively Grants Defendant Rackaukas Request for Consideration to Modify the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re Bastida 350 . No objection from the Plaintiff. The Court signs the modified writ order re Bastida. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams (AM)/Nichole Rhynard (PM). (jp) Modified on 11/18/2010 (jp). (Entered: 11/18/2010)
357 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Granting EX PARTE APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus re Gabriel Bastida 296 and that a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum be issued to secure the appearance of Gabriel Bastida to testify on 11/23/2010 at 8:30 AM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (jp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/18/2010: # 1 Writ) (kbr). (Entered: 11/18/2010)
354 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, re Request for Release of Sealed Trial Transcripts 349 . In light of this Court request for post−trial briefing the Court hereby ORDERS all sealed portions of the trial transcript in Vasquez, et al. v. Rackauckas, et al., SACV 09−1090−VBF (RNBx) be released to counsel for all parties, who having been present during trial are already privy to the information, in issue. (jp) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued. (kbr) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
358 MINUTES OF (5th day) Court Trial held and continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Case continued to 11/19/2010 at 8:30 AM. Court and counsel confer regarding Plaintiffs objections to the admission of exhibit 804. The Court takes the objection under submission and will issue its ruling shortly. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 34 of 51

11/19/2010 11/22/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010
11/24/2010
11/29/2010 11/30/2010 12/01/2010 12/14/2010

(AM)/Nichole Rhynard (PM). (jp) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
360 MINUTES OF (6th day) Court Trial Held and Continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Case continued to 11/23/2010 at 8:30 AM. Court and counsel confer regarding admission of evidence. Court admits Exhibit 818 for non−hearsay purposes. The Court also admits Exhibit 804 for non−hearsay purposes. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard (AM)/Rosalyn Adams (PM). (jp) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
359 Amended Request for Court Inspection of Injunction Area (per Dkt.#323) filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez re: Miscellaneous Document 323 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
361 Defendants' Admissions At Trial filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Admissions)(Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
362 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR TRIAL filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
363 MINUTES OF (7th day) Court Trial Held and Continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Plaintiff(s) rest. Case continued to 11/24/2010 at 8:30 AM. Are more fully reflected on the record, Court and counsel confer regarding admission of evidence. As more fully reflected on the record, the Court grants Plaintiff Amended Request for Court Inspection of Injunction Area (dkt. 359) finding that the need for inspection outweighs the time expended in conducting said inspection. The Court finds that said inspection will not result in prejudice to any party. Further, the Court finds that a reporter is not required during the inspection as no testimony will be given. The parties so stipulate. Court and counsel will further confer regarding logistical matters of the inspection on 11/24/2010. The parties shall meet and confer regarding Defendants Request for Judicial Notice. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard (AM)/Rosalyn Adams (PM). (jp) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
365 MINUTES OF (8th day) Court Trial Held and Continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Case continued to 12/1/2010 at 8:30 AM. As more fully reflected on the record, Court and Counsel confer regarding the admissibility of evidence presented in Requests for Judicial Notice. Counsel should research whether appropriateness of Judicial Notice alleviates disclosure requirements under Rule 26. Court will further visit Plaintiff remaining requests for judicial notice and Defendants Requests for Judicial Notice at the continuation of trial. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard. (jp) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
364 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Miscellaneous Document 359 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Directions to Starting Point, # 2 Exhibit B − Court Inspections Route Map, # 3 Exhibit C − Court Inspection Directions)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
366 MINUTES: PROCEEDINGS: COURT INSPECTION OF INJUNCTION AREA (Non−Evidentiary; Held and Completed) before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The Court conducts an inspection of the Injunction Area. No evidence, Other than the inspection, is presented. No testimony is made. Plaintiffs Counsel, Belinda Helzer, is present in a separate car. Defense Counsel Wayne Winthers and Melissa Culp are also present in another separate car. The Court does not communicate with said counsel. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (jp) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
367 MINUTES OF (9th day) Court Trial Held and Continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Closing arguments made by plaintiffs and Defendants. Case submitted. Case continued to 2/14/2011 at 1:00 PM. (See attached Minute Order for further information). Briefs to be filed by no later than 1/14/2011. Reply briefs shall be due on 1/28/2011. Hearing on Closing arguments will be held on 2/14/2011 at 1:00 PM. The Court hears short closing summaries from each party. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard. (jp) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
368 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AMENDED filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Trial Exhibit 208, # 2 Trial Exhibit 613, # 3 Trial Exhibit 614, # 4 Trial Exhibit 615)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 35 of 51

12/22/2010
01/04/2011 01/06/2011 01/07/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/14/2011
01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011
01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/18/2011 01/20/2011 01/21/2011
01/24/2011 01/24/2011

369 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquezto Request for Judicial Notice 368 to Defendants' Amended Request for Judicial Notice for Trial re Nos. 21, 22, 23, and 24 (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
370 Portions of Deposition Transcripts Read Into the Record During Trial filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
371 Chart of Exhibits Admitted During Trial and Statement of Disputed Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
372 Chart of Judicial Notice Taken at Plaintiffs' Request at Trial filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
373 BRIEF filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. CLOSING BRIEF (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit "A")(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
374 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson of EXHIBIT "B' TO DECLARATION OF WAYNE W. WINTHERS. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
375 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE POST−TRIAL filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E in Support of Request, # 2 Exhibit F− I in Support of Request, # 3 Exhibit J − M in Support of Request, # 4 Exhibit N − R in Support of Request, # 5 Exhibit S − W in Support of Request, # 6 Exhibit X− AA in Support of Request, # 7 Exhibit BB− DD in Support of Request)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
376 TRIAL BRIEF Following Trial filed by plaintiff Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
377 POST TRIAL BRIEF filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to D in Support of Post Trial Brief, # 2 Exhibit E to N in Support of Post Trial Brief)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
378 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas of Application to File Portions of Exhibits to Defendant's Post Trial Brief Under Seal; Proposed Order to Application; and Notice of Lodging portions of Exhibits to Defendant's Post Trial Brief Under Seal. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
379 NOTICE OF LODGING filed UNREDACTED Post−Trial Brief re Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 377 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
385 SEALED DOCUMENT− Exhibit B to Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers in Support of Defendant Robert Gustafson's Closing Brief.(mat) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
380 APPLICATION to File Portions of Exhibits to Defendant Orange County District Attorney post−Trial Brief Under Seal filed by defendant Tony Rackaukas. Lodged Proposed Order. (jp) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
381 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank GRANTING Application to File Portions of Exhibits Under Seal 380 . (jp) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
382 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank ORDERING Exhibit "B" to the Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers submitted by Defendant Robert Gustafson received on 1/14/11 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk. (kbr) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
383 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson, re Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 373 on PLAINTIFFS served on JANUARY 14, 2011. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
384 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson, re Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 373 on Rackauckas served on JANUARY 14, 2011.

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 36 of 51

01/28/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 02/14/2011 02/23/2011 03/01/2011
03/02/2011
03/02/2011 04/01/2011
04/01/2011 04/18/2011

(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
386 REPLY filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson to Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 373 Reply to Closing Brief (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
387 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Reply To Defendant OCDA's Post Trial Brief and Defendant OPD's Closing Brief filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez.. (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
388 REPLY BRIEF filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. TO PLAINTIFFS CLOSING BRIEF FOLLOWING TRIAL (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
389 MINUTES OF (10th day) Court Trial held and continued before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Exhibits identified and admitted. Closing arguments made by plaintiff(s) and defendant(s). Case continued to Parties to contact clerk to schedule continuation. Defendants Request for judicial notice, documents 368 and 375 are admitted. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard. (jp) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
390 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER SETTING HEARING FOR COMPLETION OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: With the agreement of counsel, a hearing is set for the completion of closing arguments for 3/1/2011 at 3:00 PM. (jp) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
393 MINUTES OF (11 Day) Court Trial held and completed by jury verdict/submitted to court before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Closing arguments made by plaintiff(s) and defendant(s). Defendant OCDA presents paper copies of demonstrative slides presented on 2/14/2011 attached hereto as Court Exhibit A. The Court will issue a Statement of Intended Decision. Within two (2) weeks from the entry of the Court Statement of Intended Decision, the prevailing party shall prepare and file a proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law consistent with the Courts findings and pursuant to Local Rules. The responding party shall file select objections within two (2) weeks from the date served with the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (jp) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
391 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 2/14/11, 1:03 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, RMR, CRR, phone number 206.579.0261. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/23/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/2/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
392 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
394 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: STATEMENT OF TENTATIVE DECISION AFTER COURT TRIAL (LOCAL RULES 52−2 − 52−8; FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 52(a)1)). After presiding over the bench trial, considering the evidence and counsel arguments, and reading the parties post−trial briefs, this court renders its Statement of Tentative Decision after Court Trial and makes an accompanying order regarding preparation of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. L.R. 52−2 − 52−8. This Statement is made after an eleven day court trial on the Plaintiffs Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (See attached Minute Order for further information). (jp) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
395 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: ORDER RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT (FED. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 52(A) AND 58). (kbr) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
396 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 394 (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs [Proposed] Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, # 2 Redline of PFFCL Against Court's Statement of Tentative Decision, # 3 Proposed Order [Proposed] Judgment)(Nagala, Sarala)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 37 of 51

05/02/2011
05/02/2011
05/02/2011 05/02/2011 05/02/2011 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011 05/10/2011 05/10/2011
05/12/2011
05/16/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011

(Entered: 04/18/2011)
397 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Robert Gustafsonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 394 [proposed] ADDITIONS TO STATEMENT OF TENTATIVE DECISION AFTER COURT TRIAL (Attachments: # 1 Clean version of Def. Gustafson's Proposed Additions to Statement of Tentative Decision After Court Trial)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
398 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Robert Gustafsonto Notice of Lodging, 396 DEF. Gustafston's Redline Changes to Plaintiff's Findings of Fact RE Court's Statement of Decision after Trial (Attachments: # 1 Def. Gustafson's Redline Changes to Plaintiff's Proposed Additional Findings of Fact RE Court's Statement of Decision after Trial)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
399 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Lodging, 396 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 394 Def. Gustafson's Objections to Plaintiff's proposed Additional Findings of Fact and to Court's Tentative Statement of Decision After Trial filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
400 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Lodging, 396 To Plaintiffs' Proposed Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
401 Defendants' REDLINE Version of Proposed Changes Against Plaintiff's Proposed Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: Notice of Lodging, 396 (Attachments: # 1 Clean Version)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
402 Defendant's REDLINED Version of Proposed Changes Against Court's Statement of Tentative Decision After Court Trial filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: Notice of Lodging, 396 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 394 (Attachments: # 1 CLEAN VERSION)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
403 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Lodging, 396 (AMENDED) filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
404 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. correcting Objections − non−motion 400 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alba E. DonJuan)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
405 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTERCOURT TRIAL and PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER signed by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (kbr) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
406 JUDGMENT by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and the two certified Plaintiff classes on their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief on their First and Second Claims against Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that Plaintiffs' Third Claim, for Writ of Habeas Corpus, be dismissed. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (kbr) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
407 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: ORDER RE TRIAL EXHIBITS ANDDEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS. The Court has copies of the trial exhibits and lodged deposition transcripts in its possession. The Court directs counsel to meet and confer regarding which party, if any, wishes to maintain the documents, then to call the Clerk to arrange pickup of the documents within two weeks from thedate of this order. (jp) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
408 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendants Tony Rackaukas. Appeal of Judgment, 406 , Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
409 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to Defendant Tony Rackaukas, re a $5.00 filing fee and a $450.00 docket fee are required to be paid to the Clerk, U.S. District Court. re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 408 (lr) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
410 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 11−55795 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 as to Defendant Tony

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 38 of 51

05/20/2011
05/20/2011 05/23/2011
05/23/2011 05/23/2011 05/23/2011
05/23/2011 05/23/2011
05/23/2011 05/23/2011 05/23/2011 05/24/2011

Rackaukas. (dmap) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
411 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Appeal, EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Ex Parte, # 2 Exhibit A−H to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 3 Exhibit I−R to Declaration of Melissa D. Culp, # 4 Proposed Order to Ex Parte)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
412 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquezto EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Appeal EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 411 Opposition (Smolowe, Laura) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
413 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquezto EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Appeal EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 411 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
414 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 6/20/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
415 DECLARATION of Joseph J. Ybarra in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A (Lauderdale case), # 2 Exhibit Exh B (Time records), # 3 Exhibit Exh C (Costs))(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
416 DECLARATION of Carol Sobel in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sobel Resume, # 2 Exhibit Jones Fee Order, # 3 Exhibit Fitzgerald Fee Order, # 4 Exhibit Lauderdale Fee Order, # 5 Exhibit OMelveny Bankruptcy App, # 6 Exhibit Irell Fee Dec, # 7 Exhibit Quinn Emanuel Fee Dec, # 8 Exhibit Gibson Dunn Fee Dec, # 9 Exhibit 2009 CourtExpress Rate Summary, # 10 Exhibit Summary Chart of Fees)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
417 DECLARATION of Attorneys Afrasiabi, Gilliam, Mirell, and Richardson in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
418 DECLARATION of Bibring in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bibring Resume, # 2 Exhibit Escobosa Helzer Resume, # 3 Exhibit Villagra Resume, # 4 Exhibit Time Records pt. 1, # 5 Exhibit Time Records pt 2, # 6 Exhibit Time Records pt 3, # 7 Exhibit Time Records pt 4, # 8 Exhibit Time Records pt 5, # 9 Exhibit Babikian Time Records, # 10 Exhibit Leung Time Records, # 11 Exhibit Chavez Time Records, # 12 Exhibit Dudakia Time Records, # 13 Exhibit Costs)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
419 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: denying Ex Parte Application for a Stay of Injunction pending Appeal 411 . (kbr) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
429 RECEIPT FOR RELEASE OF EXHIBITS to Counsel Upon Verdict/Judgment at Trial; Pursuant to stip of counsel and/or by Order of the Court, all exhibits listed on Joint exhibits list are returned to counsel for respective party(ies). (kbr) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
430 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES at trial. (kbr) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
420 REPLY In Support EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Appeal EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 39 of 51

05/25/2011 05/25/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011
05/27/2011
05/27/2011
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011

of Law 405 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Appeal re: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 411 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
421 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Consideration of Setting a New Hearing Date re Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Motion, or Alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Ex Parte Application, # 2 Declaration of Wayne Winthers in Support of Ex Parte Application, # 3 Proposed Order to Ex Parte Application)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
422 APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants filed by Plaintiffs Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez, Gabriel Bastida, James Doe. Application set for hearing on 6/9/2011 at 10:00 AM before Clerk of Court. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Bill of Costs (Form CV−59), # 2 Exhibit Exh A − Itemization, # 3 Exhibit Exh B − Filing Fees, # 4 Exhibit Exh C − Service Fees, # 5 Exhibit Exh D − Reporters' Transcripts, # 6 Exhibit Exh E − Depositions, # 7 Exhibit Exh F − Witness Fees, # 8 Exhibit Exh G − Reproduction, # 9 Exhibit Exh H − Other Costs)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
423 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Consideration of Setting a New Hearing Date re Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Motion, or Alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs 421 ; Declaration of Peter Bibring In Support filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
424 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER RE Defendants Ex Parte Application for Setting a New Hearing Date re Plaintiffs Attorney Fee Motion, or Alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond 421 , the Court finds that the justifications presented for ex parte relief and the justifications presented for the requested extension are thin at best, the Court GRANTS the Application with respect to its alternative request for relief as follows: Defendants may file their opposition no later than 6/3/2011; Plaintiffs may file their reply no later than 6/10/2011; Plaintiffs may file their reply no later than June 10, 2011; 6/20/2011 at 1:30 PM. (jp) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
425 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: AMENDED RULING GRANTING JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION for Setting a New Hearing Date re Plaintiffs Attorney Fee Motion, or Alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 421 . (See attached Minute Order for further information). on further review, the Court found good cause for the continuance of the hearing and extensions in filing deadlines. If the date or time set is unavailable to counsel, they should confer with each other and the Courtroom Deputy Clerk. The previously scheduled hearing of 6/20/2011 is taken off−calendar. (jp) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
426 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank granting defendant Ex Parte Application for Setting a New Hearing Date re Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs 421 . The Court sets a new hearing date on Plaintiffs MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 414 for 6/28/2011 at 2:30 PM. Briefing shall proceed in accordance with the Local Rules. The previously scheduled hearing date of 6/20/2011 is hereby taken off calendar. The Court hereby grants Defendants an extension to respond to Plaintiffs The Court hereby grants Defendants an extension to respond to Plaintiffs 6/6/2011. The Court hereby grants Defendants an extension to respond to Plaintiffs 6/14/2011 to file a Reply to same. (jp) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
427 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Appeal of Judgment, 406 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
428 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to Defendant Robert Gustafson, re a $5.00 filing fee and a $450.00 docket fee are required to be paid to the Clerk, U.S. District Court. re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 427 (lr) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
431 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees from June 28, 2011 to June 30, 2011 Re: MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 , Order, Set/Reset

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 40 of 51

06/01/2011 06/02/2011 06/02/2011 06/02/2011 06/03/2011 06/06/2011
06/06/2011 06/06/2011 06/06/2011 06/06/2011 06/07/2011
06/07/2011
06/08/2011 06/09/2011

Motion Hearing and R&R Deadlines,,,, 426 filed by Plaintiff−Petitioners Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Continuing Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees)(Ybarra, Joseph) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
432 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 11−55876, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 as to Defendant Robert Gustafson. (lr) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
433 OBJECTION IN OPPOSITION re: APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants 422 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
434 OBJECTION in Opposition re: APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants 422 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
435 ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank GRANTING Stipulation to Continue Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 431 : Motion continued to 6/30/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (se) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
436 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 as to Defendant Robert Gustafson; Receipt Number: LA017984, Paid in the amount of $455. (lr) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
437 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Marina A Torres counsel for Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. Marina A Torres will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.Marina A Torres is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez, et al. (Torres, Marina) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
438 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION TO re: MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wayne W. Winthers, # 2 Declaration of Det. Nigro)(Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
439 OBJECTION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
440 REPLY in support of APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants 422 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bibring, # 2 Exhibit A through G)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
441 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Opposition)(Harrell, S) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
442 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Motion set for hearing on 7/11/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order to Motion)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
443 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 442 filed by Defendants Tony Rackaukas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − F to Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit G − M to Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit N − R to Request for Judicial Notice)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
444 STIPULATION to Exceed Page Limitation as to Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff−Petitioners Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Plaintiffs' Reply Brief on Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Ybarra, Joseph) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
445 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, re Stipulation to

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 41 of 51

06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/15/2011
06/15/2011
06/20/2011 06/20/2011

Exceed Page Limitation, 444 . The Court GRANTS the parties' Stipulation for Plaintiffs to File A Single Reply Brief Not Exceeding 20 Pages In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs. (kbr) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
446 REPLY in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ybarra, Joseph) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
447 DECLARATION of Peter Afrasiabi in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 and Costs filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
448 DECLARATION of Doug Mirell in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 and Costs filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
449 REPLY in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Supplemental) of Joseph Ybarra, # 2 Exhibit A to Supplemental Decl. of Joseph Ybarra, # 3 Exhibit B to Supplemental Decl. of Joseph Ybarra)(Ybarra, Joseph) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
450 DECLARATION of Peter Bibring in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 and Costs filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F, # 2 Exhibit G−K, # 3 Exhibit L−V, # 4 Exhibit W pages 125−235, # 5 Exhibit W pages 236−357, # 6 Exhibit X−Y)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
451 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. correcting Reply (Motion related), Reply (Motion related) 449 , Reply (Motion related) 446 REGARDING DOCKET NOS. 446 AND 449 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Reply Brief on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 2 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Joseph J. Ybarra in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 3 Exhibit A to Supplemental Decl. of Joseph Ybarra, # 4 Exhibit B to Supplemental Decl. of Joseph Ybarra)(Ybarra, Joseph) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
452 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: 11/5/09, 11/6/09, 4/19/10, 11/8/10, 11/9/10AM, 11/9/10PM, 11/10/10AM, 11/10/10PM, 11/16/10AM, 11/16/10PM, 11/17/10AM, 11/17/10PM, 11/18/10AM, 11/18/10PM, 11/19/10AM, 1119/10PM, 11/23/10AM, 11/23/10PM, 11/24/10, 12/1/10, 2/14/11, 3/1/11; Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams and Nichole Rhynard; Court of Appeals Case Number: 11−55795; Re: 408 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
453 Opposition re: MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 442 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bibring)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
475 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 filed by Tony Rackaukas, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 filed by Robert Gustafson, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876. These cases are under consideration for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Within 14 days of the date of this order, counsel for all parties intending to file briefs in this matter are requested to inform Stephen Liacouras, Circuit Mediator, in writing, by email at stephen_liacouras@ca9.uscourts.gov or fax at (415) 355−8566, of their clients' views on whether: the case is appropriate for settlement discussions or mediation; the court can accommodate ongoing settlement discussions or otherwise facilitate settlement of the dispute; and/or the court should schedule a telephonic conference to discuss settlement. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, from the other parties in the case. This communication shall not be served on the opposing party and shall not be filed with the court. For more detailed information about the Mediation Program and its procedures generally, please see Mediation Program web site: www.ca9uscourts.gov/mediation. The existing briefing schedules remain in effect pending the determination whether the case will be selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Order received in this district on 7/06/2011. (lr) (Entered: 07/08/2011)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 42 of 51

06/22/2011 06/23/2011 06/24/2011 06/27/2011 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 07/01/2011
07/01/2011 07/05/2011
07/05/2011

454 Objections to and Motion to Strike New Matters Improperly Raised in Plaintiff's Reply Briefing, or Alternatively, Request for Permission to File Responsive Briefing filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: Reply (Motion related), Reply (Motion related) 449 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa D. Culp in Support of Objection)(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
455 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO OCDA'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE IN SUPPORT OF re: MOTION for Attorney Fees 414 and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
456 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document, 454 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Motion Related Document. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (db) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
457 REPLY In Support MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 MOTION to AMEND Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 405 , Judgment, 406 442 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
458 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: 11/05/09; 11/06/09; 04/19/10; 11/08/10; 11/09/10AM; 11/09/10PM; 11/10/10AM; 11/10/10PM; 11/16/10AM; 11/16/10PM; 11/17/10AM; 11/17/10PM; 11/18/10AM; 11/18/10PM; 11/19/10AM; 11/19/10PM; 11/23/10AM; 11/23/10PM; 11/24/10; 12/01/10; 02/14/11; 03/01/11; Court Reporter: ROSALYN ADAMS and NICHOLE RHYNARD; Court of Appeals Case Number: 11−55876; Re: 427 (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
461 MINUTES OF Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs 414 before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Case called, and counsel make their appearance. The Court hears oral argument and takes the matter under submission. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (jp) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
459 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: ORDER Re Defendant OCDA's Motion to Make New Findings and to Alter or Amend the Judgment 442 . Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7−15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing set on this Motion for 7/11/2011 at 1:30 PM., is hereby vacated and the matter is taken off calendar. For reasons stated below (see attached Minute Order for further information), the Court hereby DENIES the Motion (dkt. 442) in its entirety. (jp) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
460 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Ruling on Submitted Matter Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs. After the consideration of the evidence and legal authorities, the court GRANTS the Plaintiffs Motion 414 , but reduces the fees and costs awarded as follows. The Court hereby awards in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, the amount of $3,237,249.00 in attorneys' fees plus $24,412.24 in costs, resulting in a total fees and cost award of $3,261,661.24. (jp) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
462 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/9/10 11:58 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, CSR, RMR, CRR, phone number nicholerhynard@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
463 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/10/.10 11:45 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, phone number nicholerhynard@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 43 of 51

07/05/2011
07/05/2011
07/05/2011
07/05/2011
07/05/2011 07/06/2011 07/07/2011 07/11/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 07/14/2011 07/20/2011

PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
464 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/17/10 11:24 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, phone number nicholerhynard@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
465 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/23/10 8:35 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, phone number nicholerhynard@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
466 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/24/10 8:34 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, phone number nicholerhynard@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
467 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 12/1/10 8:35 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: NICHOLE RHYNARD, phone number nicholerhynard@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2011. (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
468 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings (Rhynard, Nichole) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
473 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Appeal of Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,, 460 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Harrell, S) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
474 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 11−56126 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 as to Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (dmap) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
476 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 as to Defendant Tony Rackaukas; Receipt Number: LA020767, PAID in the amount of $455. (lr) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
477 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Appeal of Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,, 460 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
480 BILL OF COSTS. Costs Taxed in amount of $ 34711.15 in favor of Manuel Vasquez and against Tony Rackaukas, et al.. RE: 422 (mb) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
478 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 11−56166, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 as to Defendant Robert Gustafson. (car) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
479 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 as to Defendant Robert Gustafson; Receipt Number: LA021517 in the amount of $455.

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 44 of 51

07/26/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011

(dmap) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
481 Plaintiffs' Request that the Court Enter Findings of Fact Supporting Its Ruling re: Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,, 460 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
482 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 1105/09, 1:30 PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
483 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/06/09, 10:00 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
484 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/09/10, 8:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) Modified on 11/21/2011 (baq). (Entered: 07/27/2011)
485 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/16/10, PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
486 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/17/10, AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
487 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/19/10, PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
488 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 03/01/11, 3:00 PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/17/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 45 of 51

07/28/2011 07/28/2011
07/28/2011 07/28/2011
07/28/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011
07/29/2011 08/01/2011 08/04/2011 08/05/2011 08/10/2011 08/10/2011 11/15/2011

10/25/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
489 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/5/09, 1:30 PM; 11/06/09, 10:30 AM; 11/09/10, 8:30 AM;11/16/10, PM; 11/17/10, AM; 11/19/10, PM; 3/01/11, 3:00 PM (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
490 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/10/10, AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/18/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/26/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
491 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/10/10, AM (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
493 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/18/10, PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/18/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/26/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
494 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/18/10, PM (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
497 FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING RULING RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 481 (jre) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
498 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/23/10, PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/19/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/27/2011. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
499 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/23/10, PM (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
500 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 as to Defendant Tony Rackaukas; Receipt Number: LA022229 in the amount of $455. (dmap) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
501 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: June 30, 2011; Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams; Court of Appeals Case Number: 11−56126; Re: 473 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
502 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
503 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by DEFENDANT Robert Gustafson. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 Filed On: July 13, 2011; Entered On: July 14, 2011; (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
504 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: June 30, 2011; Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams; Court of Appeals Case Number: 11−56166; Re: 477 (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
506 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/30/11, 9:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com.

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 46 of 51

11/16/2011 11/16/2011
11/16/2011
11/22/2011 11/23/2011 05/11/2012 05/11/2012 09/11/2012
09/11/2012

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 12/6/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/16/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/13/2012. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
507 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 6/30/11, 9:30 AM. (dc) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
508 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/08/10, 2:30 PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 12/7/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/17/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/14/2012. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
509 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/10/10, 8:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 12/7/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/17/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/14/2012. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
511 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer counsel for Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Changing Address to 2100 N. Broadway, Suite 209, Santa Ana, CA 92706. Changing Fax number to (714) 543−5240. Filed by Plaintiff Manuel Vasquez, et al (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
512 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Transcript (CV), Transcript (CV), Transcript (CV) 490 (dc) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
513 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, 11−56166. The opening brief submitted on 3/29/12 is filed. [See document for further information]. Order received in this district on 5/11/12. (car) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
514 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, 11−56166. Appellants' motion for leave to file an oversized opening brief is granted. The answering brief is due within 30 days after the date of this order. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Order received in this district on 5/11/12. (car) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
515 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 filed by Robert Gustafson; Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 filed by Tony Rackaukas; Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 filed by Robert Gustafson; Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 filed by Tony Rackaukas; CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, 11−56166. Appellees' unopposed motion for leave to file an oversized answering brief is granted. The Clerk shall file and maintain the answering brief and the supplemental excerpts of record under seal. Appellants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the reply brief is granted. If appellants have not already done so, appellants may file the reply brief within 14 days after the date of this order. Order received in this district on 9/11/2012. (dmap) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
516 Notice of Electronic Filing re USCA Order,,, 515 e−mailed to sarala.nagala@mto.com bounced due to 5.1.0 − Unknown address error 550−'No such user − psmtp'. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to sarala_nagala@usdoj.gov. Pursuant to the General Order and Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(tyw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/14/2012)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 47 of 51

09/17/2012 11/30/2012 04/10/2013 11/13/2013
11/15/2013
11/29/2013 12/09/2013 12/10/2013 12/23/2013

517 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Sarala Vidya Nagala counsel for Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Sarala V. Nagala will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.Sarala V. Nagala is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Manuel Vasquez, et al. (Nagala, Sarala) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
518 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, 11−56166. Appellants' motion for leave to file an oversized reply brief consisting of 7,952 words is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief. Order received in this district on 11/30/12. (car) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
519 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, 11−56166. As discussed at oral argument on 4/8/13, the parties are requested,within ten days of the file date of this order, to report to the court in writing whether they wish to attempt to settle this case with the assistance of the Office of the Circuit Mediator. If the parties indicate an interest in pursuing mediation, the panel will vacate submission. Order received in this district on 4/10/13. (car) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
520 [VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 11/15] MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Order Directing the Parties to File a Joint Statement of Issues to be Resolved on Remand by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: No later than Monday, December 2, 2013, the parties SHALL JOINTLY FILE a Statement of Issue(s) on Remand which they believe this Court must resolve to comply with the Ninth Circuit's remand order. To the extent that the parties do not entirely agree on the scope of the issues to be resolved on remand, they shall separately state their respective views on the scope of those issues. After receiving the Joint Statement of Issues on Remand, this Court will establish deadlines for briefs on the aforementioned attorney−fee issue and any other issues it deems necessary to comply with the remand order. (bp) Modified on 11/15/2013 (bp). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
521 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Order (1) Vacating Nov. 13, 2013 Order (Doc 520); (2) Directing the Parties to File Joint or Individual Statement of Issues to be Resolved on Remand. This order replaces and supersedes the Order issued November 13, 2013. This Court's Order issued November 13, 2013 [Document #520] is VACATED. No later than Tuesday, December 10, 2013, each party MAY FILE a Statement of Issue(s) on Remand which that party believes this Court must resolve to comply with the Ninth Circuit's remand order. If multiple parties agree on the issue(s) to be resolved on remand, those parties MAY FILE a joint Statement of Issues. After receiving any timely filed Statement(s) of Issues on Remand, this Court will establish deadlines for briefs on the D.A. attorney−fee issue and any other issues it deems necessary to comply with the remand order. (bp) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
522 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 , Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 , Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 and Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126 and 11−56166. The decision of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Mandate received in this district on 11/29/2013. (dmap) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
523 STATEMENT Defendant OCDA's Statement of Issues on Remand Pursuant to Court Order of November 15, 2003 filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 521 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
524 STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS ISSUES ON REMAND filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
525 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, 11−56166. Plaintiffs−Appellees' request for attorneys' fees on appeal is granted, and the application is referred to the courts special master, Appellate Commissioner Peter L. Shaw, for determination of the appropriate fee amount. The Appellate Commissioners order is subject to reconsideration by the panel. Order received in this district on 12/23/13. (car) (Entered: 01/02/2014)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 48 of 51

01/16/2014
07/14/2014 07/15/2014 07/16/2014 08/13/2014 08/27/2014 11/05/2014

526 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 filed by Tony Rackaukas, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 filed by Tony Rackaukas, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, and 11−56166. The court granted appellees' motion for attorneys' fees and referred to the Appellate Commissioner the determination of the amount of fees. Appellants' motion to strike appellees' reply brief is denied. The question of the fee amount is referred to the Circuit Mediator, who will contact the parties. The Circuit Mediator is requested to inform the Appellate Commissioner of the conclusion of the mediation. (dmap) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
527 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Amending Fee Award Against Rackaukas on Remand filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Motion set for hearing on 8/11/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Bibring, # 2 Declaration of Laura Smolowe, # 3 Declaration of Carol Sobel, # 4 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
529 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The hearing which the plaintiffs noticed for August 11, 2014 is VACATED. No later than Wednesday, August 13, 2014, defendant Rackauckas SHALL FILE a brief responding to plaintiffs "Motion to Amend Attorneys' Fees Award Against Defendant Rackauckas." No later than Wednesday, August 13, 2014, defendant Gustafson MAY FILE a brief responding to plaintiffs "Motion to Amend Attorneys' Fees Award Against Defendant Rackauckas." No later than Wednesday, August 27, 2014, the plaintiffs MAY FILE a reply brief. (jp) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
528 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Joseph John Ybarra counsel for Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Joseph John Ybarra is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attorney Joseph John Ybarra added to party James Doe(pty:pla))(Ybarra, Joseph) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
530 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for Amending Fee Award Against Rackaukas on Remand 527 DEFENDANTS JOINT BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND ATTORNEYS FEES AWARD AGAINST RACKAUCKAS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER ON REMAND filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas. (Attorney Melissa D Culp added to party Robert Gustafson(pty:dft))(Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
531 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Order for Amending Fee Award Against Rackaukas on Remand 527 filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Bibring, # 2 Declaration of Barrett S. Litt)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
532 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiffs' "Motion to Amend Attorneys' Fees Award Against Rackauckas" 530 (Relieving Rackauckas of Liability for Fees Attributable to State−Law Multiplier; (2) Determining that Argument that Gustafson Should Not Be Liable for Prior Fee Award is Barred by the Rule of Mandate and by Defendants' Failure to Raise it on Appeal; (3) Determining that Argument that Prior Fee Award Should Be Apportioned is by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Plaintiffs' "Motion to Amend Attorneys' Fees Award Against Defendant Rackauckas on Remand" 527 is GRANTED. This Court's prior fee award IS AMENDED to relieve defendant Rackauckas of liability for fees attributable to the state−law multiplier. In addition, both defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay plaintiffs for the reasonable attorneys fees and costs which plaintiffs incurred in preparing (1) plaintiffs' opening brief in support of their "Motion to Amend Attorneys' Fees Award Against Defendant Rackauckas on Remand" 527 and all attachments and exhibits thereto, (2) plaintiffs' reply brief 531 and all attachments and exhibits thereto, and (3) plaintiffs' forthcoming response to this order. The Court APPROVES as reasonable the number of hours expended by plaintiffs' counsel and the hourly rates requested by plaintiffs' counsel in their briefs and attachments on the instant motion to amend. The same rates SHALL APPLY to hours which plaintiffs expend to comply

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 49 of 51

11/20/2014 11/24/2014 11/25/2014 12/03/2014 12/10/2014 12/11/2014
12/17/2014
12/18/2014 12/31/2014 01/14/2015 01/21/2015 02/12/2015

with today's Order. No later than Thursday, November 20, 2014, plaintiffs SHALL FILE a proposed order. (See attached document for other requirements.) (lom) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
533 NOTICE OF LODGING filed (Proposed Order Re Payment of Attorneys' Fees re Order on Motion for Order,,,,,, 532 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
534 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Lodging 533 Proposed Order RE Payment of Attorneys' Fees filed by Defendant Robert Gustafson. (Winthers, Wayne) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
535 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquezto Objections − non−motion 534 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Gustafson's Objection To Proposed Order Re: Payment of Attorneys' Fees (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
536 NOTICE of Joinder to Defendant Robert Gustafson's Objection to Plaintiffs' Proposed Order re Payment of Attorneys's Fees filed by DEFENDANT Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
537 DEFENDANTS RACKAUCKAS AND GUSTAFSONS JOINT REQUEST FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON ELECTION TO MAKE PERIODIC PAYMENTS OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CAL. GOV. CODE § 984 filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas re: Notice (Other) 536 , Notice of Lodging 533 , Objection 534 (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
538 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON ELECTION TO MAKE PERIODIC PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO CAL. GOVT CODE § 984, AND REVISED PROPOSED ORDER filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez re: Notice of Lodging 533 , Miscellaneous Document, 537 (Attachments: # 1 Revised Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
539 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The Court ADOPTS AND ISSUES as its own order pages 3 through 12 of the plaintiffs revised proposed order which was filed and docketed on 12/11/2014 as Document 538 −1. Defendants" "Joint Request for Briefing schedule on Election to Make Periodic Payments of Judgment Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 984" [Doc # 537 ] is GRANTED. No later than Wednesday, December 31, 2014, defendants SHALL FILE a brief stating their position as to when each defendant must pay the aforementioned award of fees and costs. No later than Wednesday, January 14, 2014, plaintiffs SHALL FILE a response brief. No later than Wednesday, January 21, 2014, defendants MAY FILE a reply brief. (jp) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
540 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer counsel for Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. Filed by plaintiff Manuel Vasquez, et. al.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
541 BRIEF filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas. DEFENDANTS RACKAUCKAS AND GUSTAFSONS JOINT BRIEF RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT PER COURT ORDER [DKT. NO. 539] regarding Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 539 . (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
542 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquezto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 539 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE RE TIMING OF PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
543 REPLY filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas to Brief (non−motion non−appeal), 541 , Response, 542 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 539 Defendants Rackauckas and Gustafsons Joint Reply Brief re Payment of Judgment Per Court Order (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
544 STATUS REPORT DEFENDANTS RACKAUCKAS AND GUSTAFSONS JOINT STATUS REPORT RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 50 of 51

02/18/2015
02/27/2015 03/09/2015 04/20/2015 04/21/2015 05/12/2015
05/18/2015 06/09/2015
06/10/2015

545 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 filed by Tony Rackaukas, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 filed by Tony Rackaukas, CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, and 11−56166. The parties joint request for a stay to finalize settlement negotiations is granted. Within 45 days after the date of this order, the parties shall file a motion for appropriate relief or a report on the status of settlement proceedings. Order received in this district on 2/18/15. (mat) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
546 JOINT STATUS REPORT of Re Notice of Settlement and Request for Stay filed by Defendants Robert Gustafson, Tony Rackaukas. (Culp, Melissa) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
547 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS Order Granting the Joint Motion to Stay this Case, and Directing Parties to File a Joint Status Report or Joint Stipulation of Dismissal No Later than Monday, April 20, 2015 546 by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: This action is STAYED until further Order of the Court. No later than Monday, April 20, 2015, all parties SHALL JOINTLY FILE either a report on the status of settlement negotiations or a stipulation of dismissal. (jp) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
548 STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT RE STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTATIONS AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STAY filed by Defendant Tony Rackaukas. (Harrell, S) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
549 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Order Granting the Joint Motion to Extend the Stay of this Case 548 , and Directing Parties to File a Joint Status Report or Joint Stipulation of Dismissal No Later than 5/22/2015. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
550 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 filed by Tony Rackaukas, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 filed by Tony Rackaukas. CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, and 11−56166. The parties' have submitted a further status report. The parties' joint request for a further stay to finalize settlement negotiations is granted. Within 30 days after the date of this order, the parties shall file a motion for appropriate relief or a report on the status of settlement proceedings. (mat) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
551 STIPULATION for Attorney Fees in the amount of $3,348,139.47 Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Joint Stipulation Re Attorneys Fees & Costs)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
552 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 477 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 408 filed by Tony Rackaukas, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 427 filed by Robert Gustafson, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 473 filed by Tony Rackaukas. CCA # 11−55795, 11−55876, 11−56126, and 11−56166. Defendants shall pay these attorneys fees and costs directly to Plaintiffs counsel by check made out to ACLU Foundation of Southern California within 60 days of the date of this order. Any issues arising regarding payment of these amounts shall be heard in the first instance in the district court. Judgment having previously been entered in Plaintiffs' favor, this order fully disposes of Plaintiffs' application for attorneys fees and costs on appeal, and resolves all outstanding issues on this Appeal. This order amends the courts mandate. [See document for all details] (mat) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
553 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Incorporating and Adopting the Proposed Fee Order Filed as Document #551−1; Closing and Terminating this Action by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. On February 12, 2015, defendants filed a report stating that the Orange County Board of Supervisors met on February 3, 2015 and approved payment of this Court's judgment in full during the fiscal year which runs through July 31, 2015. See Doc 544 at 2 with n.1. On April 20, 2015, the parties advised the Court (Doc 548 at 2) that they anticipated a final agreement on attorney fees within fourteen days. The Court issued an Order (Doc 549 ) which directed them to file a stipulation of dismissal or status report by May 31, 2015. The parties timely filed a "Joint Stipulation re Attorneys' Fees & Costs" (Doc 551 ). The Court has

Case: 8:09-cv-1090 As of: 11/07/2017 09:10 AM PST 51 of 51

07/06/2015

reviewed the stipulation and finds nothing therein to be inconsistent with this Courts prior Orders. Cf. NRDC v. Locke, 771 F. Supp.2d 1203, 1206 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ("NRDC and Defendants reached, and this Court endorsed, a stipulated settlement of interim fees and expenses for work on this case through January 2004 . . . ."). Accordingly: The Court hereby ADOPTS the "Joint Stipulation Re: Attorneys' Fees & Costs" which was filed as Document 551 ("the Joint Fee Stipulation").1 The Court hereby INCORPORATES and ADOPTS as its own Order the proposed attorney−fee order which was filed as Document 551−1 pages 3 and 4. This case is closed and TERMINATED. (lom) Modified on 6/10/2015 (lom). (Entered: 06/10/2015)
554 NOTICE Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Money Judgment Gabriel Bastida, James Doe, Miguel Bernal Lara, Manuel Vasquez. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 07/06/2015)