U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-00190-NC

Angell et al v. City of Oakland et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Date Terminated: 04/07/2015 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Steven Angell

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510-839-1200 Fax: 510-444-6698 Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yolanda Huang Law Offices of Yolanda Huang 528 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 329-2140 Fax: (510) 580-9410 Email: yhuang.law@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills Siegel & Yee 499 - 14th Street Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 510-839-1200 Fax: 510-444-6698 Email: abweills@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan Siegel Siegel Yee & Brunner 475 14th Street, Suite 500

Plaintiff Miles Avery
Plaintiff Molly Batchelder
Plaintiff Sri Louise also known as Louise Coles

Oakland, CA 94612 510-839-1200 Fax: 510-444-6698 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cicily Cooper
Plaintiff Shareef Elfiki
Plaintiff Theodore Hector
Plaintiff

represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Weber Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
V. Defendant City of Oakland

represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins City Attorney's Office City of Oakland One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510-238-2961 Fax: 510-238-6500 Email: jhodgkins@oaklandcityattorney.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. City Attorney's Office City of Oakland One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510-238-6520 Fax: 510-238-6500 Email: omcgeejr@oaklandcityattorney.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons Simmons Mediation 1300 Clay St Ste 600

Defendant County of Alameda
Defendant Howard Jordan TERMINATED: 04/07/2015

Oakland, CA 94612-1427 (925) 765-2120 Fax: (925) 765-2120 Email: bill@simmonsadr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith 2001 North Main Street Suite 650 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-953-1620 Fax: 925-953-1625 Email: wsimmons@lozanosmith.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell Boornazian Jensen & Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P.O. Box 12925 Oakland, CA 94604-2925 510-834-4350 Fax: 510-839-1897 Email: grockwell@bjg.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama Boornazian Jensen & Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P.O. Box 12925 Oakland, CA 94607 510-834-4350 Fax: 510-839-1897 Email: jsazama@bjg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Jeffrey Israel TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Eric Breshears TERMINATED: 04/07/2015

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ron Yelder TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Darren Allison TERMINATED: 04/07/2015

William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Steve Tull TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Edward Tracey TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant

Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Rachal TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Sean Whent TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Gregory J. Ahern TERMINATED: 04/07/2015

represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James F. Hodgkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Otis McGee , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edmond Simmons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lozano Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama

Defendant Brett Keteles TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Carla Kennedy TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant David Brady TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant Gregory L. Morgado TERMINATED: 04/07/2015
Defendant

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kerry Jackson TERMINATED: 04/07/2015

represented by Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Sazama (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/14/2013
01/14/2013 01/14/2013 01/25/2013 01/29/2013

# Docket Text

CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

AND INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF: DEMAND

FOR JURY TRIAL; against Gregory J. Ahern, Darren Allison,

David Brady, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, County of Alameda,

Jeffrey Israel, Kerry Jackson, Howard Jordan, Carla Kennedy, Brett

Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado, Anthony Rachal, Edward Tracey,

Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder ( Filing fee $ 350.00, receipt

number 44611009984.). Filed byTheodore Hector, Shareef Elfiki,

Steven Angell, Cicily Cooper, Lindsay Weber, Sri Louise, Molly

Batchelder, Miles Avery. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(aaa,

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/10/2013. Case Management Conference set for 4/17/2013 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 1/14/13. (Attachments: # 1 NC Standing Order, # 2 Standing Order)(aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

3 Summons Issued as to Gregory J. Ahern, Darren Allison, David Brady, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, County of Alameda, Jeffrey Israel, Kerry Jackson, Howard Jordan, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado, Anthony Rachal, Edward Tracey, Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

4 ERRONEOUSLY E-FILED: PLEASE SEE CIVIL CASE 004599 TEH FOR PROPER E-FILING MOTION to Relate Case filed by Steven Angell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/25/2013) Modified on 1/28/2013 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2013)

5 RESPONSE to DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON, STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL, AND SEAN WHENTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES

01/29/2013 01/30/2013
01/31/2013 02/15/2013
02/22/2013 02/22/2013 03/18/2013

SHOULD BE RELATED by Darren Allison, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, Jeffrey Israel, Howard Jordan, Anthony Rachal, Edward Tracey, Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder. (Logue, Jennifer) (Filed on 1/29/2013) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
6 Proposed Order [PROPOSED ORDER] DENYING PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED by Darren Allison, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, Jeffrey Israel, Howard Jordan, Edward Tracey, Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder. (Jefferson, Jamilah) (Filed on 1/29/2013) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
7 RESPONSE to DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON, STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL, AND SEAN WHENTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (Filed under wrong attorney on 1/29/2013) by Darren Allison, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, Jeffrey Israel, Howard Jordan, Anthony Rachal, Edward Tracey, Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder. (Jefferson, Jamilah) (Filed on 1/30/2013) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
8 CLERK'S NOTICE Regarding Motion to Relate Cases C00-4599 TEH and C13-0190 NC. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2013) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
9 DEFENDANTS CITY OF OAKLAND, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON, STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL and SEAN WHENT'S ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND byDarren Allison, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, Jeffrey Israel, Howard Jordan, Anthony Rachal, Edward Tracey, Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder. (Simmons, William) (Filed on 2/15/2013) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
10 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byGregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 2/22/2013) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
11 Certificate of Interested Entities by Gregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 2/22/2013) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Mark Siegel (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/27/2013 03/28/2013 04/10/2013 04/16/2013 04/17/2013
04/18/2013
04/22/2013 09/10/2013

13 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) Jt. Consent to Magistrate, Rule 26 Compliance (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/27/2013) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
14 ADR Clerk Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 4/12/13 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2013) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
15 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT , Joint filed by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/10/2013) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by GDB on 4/12/13. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2013) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
16 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 4/17/2013. CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Beeler for Settlement Conference to occur at the end of September 2013. Motion for class certification shall be filed by 11/30/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (FTR: 10:55am 11:04am.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/17/2013) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
17 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case REFERRED to Judge Beeler for settlement conference to occur by the end of September 2013. Prior to the settlement conference, defendants will take the depositions of the named plaintiffs, not to exceed three hours each. Deadline for plaintiff to file motion for class certification is 11/29/2013. Updated joint case management statement due by 10/7/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/18/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
18 NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Settlement Conference set for 9/25/2013 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/22/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2013) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
19 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED DATES filed by Gregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry

09/12/2013 09/18/2013 09/18/2013
09/25/2013 09/25/2013
12/02/2013 01/07/2014

Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

20 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING Telephonic Conference re 19 for 9/18/2013 02:30 PM with Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Counsel shall contact the Courtroom Deputy at 415.522.2039 to provide a direct dial number for their appearance. This is a text-only entry generated by the Court. There is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

21 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference held with Judge Cousins on 9/18/2013 re Dkt. 19. Stipulation is granted as modified. (FTR:2:48pm-2:57pm.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION AS MODIFIED 19 . Last

22

date to amend complaint or add new parties 10/31/2013. Last date

for plaintiffs to file motion for class certification 2/3/2014. Further

Case Management Conference set for 2/5/2014 10:00 AM. Joint case

management statement due 1/29/2014. Completion of settlement

conference with Judge Beeler 1/21/2014. Signed by Judge Nathanael

Cousins on 9/18/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013)

(Entered: 09/23/2013)

23 Proposed Order CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Gregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE:

24

Re 23 Proposed Order filed by Carla Kennedy, David Brady,

Gregory L. Morgado, Brett Keteles, County of Alameda, Kerry

Jackson, Gregory J. Ahern. Settlement Conference set for

1/13/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San

Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on

9/25/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered:

09/25/2013)

25 NOTICE by Darren Allison, Eric Breshears, City of Oakland, Jeffrey Israel, Howard Jordan, Anthony Rachal, Edward Tracey, Steve Tull, Sean Whent, Ron Yelder Notice of Association of Counsel (Simmons, William) (Filed on 12/2/2013) (Entered: 12/02/2013)

ORDER - Plaintiffs shall submit their tardy settlement

26

conference statements (including demands) by 6 p.m. today or

the court will vacate the settlement conference. Signed by Judge

01/09/2014
01/13/2014 01/14/2014 01/17/2014

Laurel Beeler on 1/7/2014. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2014) (Entered: 01/07/2014)

ORDER TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR

27

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ORDER ATTACHED)

(SUMMARY TEXT ENTRY INCLUDED FOR EASE OF

READING ON PHONES) The following additional information

is required by the court's order at ECF No. 18 and must be

submitted by noon on Friday, January 10, 2014 by email to the

court's orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov: (1) Defendants

must respond to Plaintiffs demand and must simultaneously

notify the court; (2) the City of Oakland must submit a list of

attendees from the City Attorneys Office; and (3) Plaintiffs must

provide fees and costs to date to the court and projected through

trial and may do so confidentially. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on

1/9/2014) (Entered: 01/09/2014)

28 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 1/13/2014). The attorneys (Ms. Huang, Mr. Siegel, Mr. Hall, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Rockwell) and Oakland Police Department (Captain Allison) will have an in-person meeting on February 5, 2014 at the Oakland City Attorney's office as discussed. The parties should coordinate with Ms. Scott to pick another settlement conference date in about 30 days. The court will ask Judge Cousins to continue the currentlyscheduled dates (2/3/14 deadline to file motion for class certification, 2/5/14 Case Management Conference) for approximately 60 days. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/13/2014) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

29 CLERKS NOTICE CONTINUING Further Case Management Conference to 4/16/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Updated joint statement due 4/9/2014. Deadline for filing class certification motion is extended to 4/04/2014. This is a textonly entry generated by the Court. There is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

30 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING FURTHER Settlement Conference for 2/24/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Counsel shall submit updated Settlement Statements by February 14, 2014 to: lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. The Order scheduling a settlement conference issued on 4/22/2013, ECF No. 18 remains in affect. (This is a docket text entry only. There are no documents associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2014) Modified on 1/17/2014 (ls, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2014)

01/17/2014 02/24/2014 03/04/2014
03/05/2014 04/08/2014 04/22/2014 04/28/2014
04/28/2014

Set/Reset Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 2/24/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2014) (Entered: 01/17/2014)

31 Minute Entry: Settlement conference held. Counsel to coordinate with Lashanda Scott within two days to schedule a further settlement conference. (Date Filed: 2/24/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/24/2014) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

32 CLERKS NOTICE EXTENDING deadline for filing class certification motions to 5/2/2014. Updated joint case management statement due 5/7/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/14/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. This is a text-only entry. There is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2014) (Entered: 03/04/2014)

33 CLERKS NOTICE: Further Settlement Conference set for 4/8/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Any updated settlement conference statements due April 1, 2014. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with the entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

34 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 4/8/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/8/2014) (Entered: 04/09/2014)

35 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 4/22/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/22/2014) (Entered: 04/23/2014)

36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE PLAINTIFFS DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED DATES filed by Gregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

37

PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION, CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES 36 . Completion

date of settlement conference with Judge Beeler is 7/31/2014. Last

date for plaintiffs to file class certification motion is 8/06/2014. Case

Management Statement due 9/17/2014. Case Management

Conference set for 9/24/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor,

San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/28/14. (lmh,

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/29/2014 04/29/2014 06/24/2014 06/24/2014 06/25/2014
06/27/2014

38 Proposed Order Continuing Settlement Conference by Gregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 4/29/2014) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
39 ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler Settlement Conference set for 6/27/2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/29/2014. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2014) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
40 ORDER re 6/27/14 Settlement Conference:By 11 a.m. on Thursday, June 26, the parties must do the following: (1) exchange a lists of who is attending the settlement conference on Friday and thereafter, confer if there are disagreements about necessary attendees (and let the court know by 1 p.m.); (2) update their costs and fees to date and projected through trial; and (3) email the information to the court at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 6/24/2014) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
41 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 6/24/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/24/2014) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
42 ORDER regarding length of settlement conference on Friday, June 27, 2014: the court is allotting a total of 3 hours (from 10:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.). In its separate conferences, the court previously directed the parties to confer in aid of an efficient settlement process. Given the start time of 10:30 a.m., Plaintiffs' counsel can use the time from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. to meet with the plaintiffs (and can use the witness rooms in the attorney's lounge on 18). If there is any further work on either side that can be accomplished before the settlement conference by a follow-up phone call, the parties must arrange that through courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott on Thursday morning, June 26, so that a call can be scheduled later in the afternoon of June 26. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 6/25/2014) Modified on 6/26/2014 (ls, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2014)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by James F. Hodgkins (Hodgkins, James) (Filed on 6/27/2014) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/27/2014 06/27/2014 06/30/2014 07/03/2014
07/11/2014
07/15/2014

44 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 6/27/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/27/2014) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE:

45

Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 6/30/2014 at 3:00 P.M.

The court will provide counsel with the dial-in conference

information in a separate email. Signed by Magistrate Judge

Laurel Beeler on 6/27/2014. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on

6/27/2014) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

46 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held. Oakland to present to city council on 7/15/2014. Court proposed inperson settlement conference on 7/17/14 based on Mr. McGee's availability and the court's. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hodgkins to check availability with Alameda and Plaintiffs and inform the court within 2 business days. (Date Filed: 6/30/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/30/2014) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

47 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING Settlement Conference set for 7/17/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Any updated settlement conference statements due July 10, 2014. The statements may be emailed to the order's box: lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. The Settlement Conference Order issued on April 22, 2014, ECF No. 18 remains in affect. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

48 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING Telephonic Settlement Conference for 7/16/2014 at 4:00 P.M. with City of Oakland counsel (Mr. Hodgkins and Mr. Simmons) and at 4:30 p.m. with County of Alameda counsel (Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Maiolini). Counsel were provided with the dial-in conference call information in a separate email. (This is a docket text entry only. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2014) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

49 Minute Entry: Telephonic Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 7/15/2014). Settlement communications with all counsel in anticipation of settlement conference. Defense counsel to confer by telephone as directed before the calls scheduled for Wednesday, July 16. If the calls scheduled at 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. are too late in the day, the court can accommodate an earlier time. The settlement conference on Thursday, July 17 will begin at 1:00 p.m. for counsel and their lawyers in the manner and for the reasons described in the pre-conference communications. The court will join defendants at 2:00 p.m. and plaintiffs thereafter. The conference will start in

07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/17/2014 07/30/2014 07/31/2014
08/04/2014 08/05/2014 08/05/2014

separate sessions for the reasons described in the pre-conference communications. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/15/2014) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

50 NOTICE of Appearance by Otis McGee, Jr (OF COUNSEL) (McGee, Otis) (Filed on 7/16/2014) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

51 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 7/16/2014). (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/16/2014) (Entered: 07/17/2014)

52 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 7/17/2014). (Digital FTR Recording: 5:42-5:47) (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/17/2014) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

53 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held (Date Filed: 7/30/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/30/2014) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

54 ORDER regarding further update received from City of Oakland. Further update to be provided by August 14, 2014 at 2 p.m. by telephoning chambers at 415-22-4660 or emailing the court's orders box at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 7/31/2014) Modified on 8/1/2014 (ls, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/2014)

55 STIPULATION with Proposed Order re Continuance of Deadlines and Case Management Conference. by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 8/4/2014) Modified on 8/5/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2014)

Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. Stipulation with Proposed order is correct event. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 55 Proposed Order filed by Steven Angell (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE

56

OF DEADLINES AND CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE 55 . Completion of settlement process with Judge

Beeler is 9/15/2014. Last day for plaintiffs to file a motion for class

certification 9/30/2014. Joint Case Management Statement due by

10/15/2014. Case Management Conference set for 10/22/2014 10:00

AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge

08/09/2014 08/11/2014
08/11/2014 08/15/2014 08/18/2014
09/24/2014

Nathanael Cousins on 8/5/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
58 Minute Entry: Settlement Conferences held on August 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, 2014 (Date Filed: 8/9/2014). (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
57 CLERKS NOTICE: THIS IS A TEXT ENTRY ONLY. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NOTICE.Settlement communications with City of Oakland and Alameda County on August 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 (Messieurs Rockwell, Maiolini,, McGee, Hodgkins, and Simmons). Court sets further call with City of Oakland (Messieurs McGee, Hodgkins (if available), and Simmons for Monday, August 11, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Counsel to call into chambers on one line at 415-522-4660. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing re 57 Clerks Notice, Telephone Settlement Conference set for 8/11/2014 04:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 8/18/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. The court orders the attendance of the parties specified in the email sent just now to counsel. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/15/2014) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
59 Minute Entry: Further settlement conference held. Parties to update the court by email no later than September 24, 2014 at noon with the additional information requested. Court sets a further telephonic settlement conference call for September 24, 2014 at 4 p.m. Counsel to call into chambers with all the parties on one number to 415-5224660. (Date Filed: 8/18/2014). (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/18/2014) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
Settlement Conference set for 9/24/2014 04:00 PM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Beeler on 9/24/14. The court previously directed the defendants to update the court by noon today by email. See previous docket entry and minute order. The court received no updates. The court set the call at 4:00 specifically to get the email updates and then talk to the parties. The parties must update the court immediately by email to lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a text-entry order generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 9/24/2014) Modified on 9/25/2014 (lsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2014)

09/24/2014 10/03/2014
10/08/2014
10/08/2014 10/09/2014
11/05/2014 11/12/2014

60 Minute Entry: Settlement communications with counsel. Case settled. (Date Filed: 9/24/2014). (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/24/2014) (Entered: 09/25/2014)

61 CLERK'S NOTICE: Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins will be moving his chambers on November 17, 2014, and will hear matters in both San Francisco Courtroom A and San Jose Courtroom 7. He also has amended his General Standing Order, which can be found on the Court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov. Parties should consult the General Standing Order, which includes available hearing dates, before scheduling a hearing with Judge Cousins. This is a text-only entry generated by the Court. There is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2014) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

62 Consent MOTION to Certify Class filed by Steven Angell. Motion Hearing set for 10/22/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 10/22/2014. Replies due by 10/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Plaintiffs' Declarations in SUpport of Motin for Class Action Certification, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Y. Huang with Exhibit A attached, Stipulation and Crowd Control Policy, # 3 Non-Opposition on Behalf of all Defendants)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Entered: 10/08/2014)

63 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed by Steven Angell. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Yolanda Huang in Support of Joint Application for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Settlement Agreement)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Entered: 10/08/2014)

64 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING Consent Motion to Certify Class 62 , Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment 63 and Case Management Conference for 11/12/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Case Management Statement due by 11/5/2014. This is a text-only entry generated by the Court. There is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

65 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 11/5/2014) (Entered: 11/05/2014)

ORDER RE: ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT HEARING.

66

Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 11/12/2014. (nclc2,

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 11/21/2014 11/21/2014 12/03/2014

67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Plaintiff Attorney Dan Siegel, Yolanda Huang. Defendants' Attorneys William Simmons, Gregory Rockwell. Hearing re Consent Motion to Certify Class 62 and Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment 63 held on 11/12/2014. Motions taken under submission. (FTR: 1:25pm 2:25pm) Attachment Minute order. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

68 ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 63 . The parties have until 12/3/2014, to file a revised settlement agreement, revised notice, and a renewed motion for preliminary approval. The Court will hold a preliminary approval hearing on 12/17/2014, 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

Set Hearings: Preliminary approval hearing set for 12/17/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

69 Declaration of Dan Siegel in Support of 66

Order to approve

12/03/2014

settlement filed bySteven Angell. (Related document(s) 66 ) (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
70 AFFIDAVIT re 68 Order on Motion to Approve Consent Judgment, 67 Motion Hearing, Terminate Hearings,, 62 Consent

12/17/2014 01/05/2015

MOTION to Certify Class , 66 Order For Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement and Attorneys Fees by Steven Angell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement with Track Changes, # 2 Exhibit Class Action & Settlement Notice)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)

71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Preliminary Approval Hearing held on 12/17/2014. Plaintiffs' Attorneys Yolanda Huang, Dan Siegel. Defendants' Attorneys Greg Rockwell, William Simmons. Court to issue order. (Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce). This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/17/2014) (Entered: 12/17/2014)

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins

72

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS

01/06/2015 01/07/2015
01/08/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 02/13/2015

CERTIFICATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Re: Dkt. Nos. 62, 63, 70 (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2015) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

Set Hearing re Order on Motion to Certify Class 72 . Final Approval Hearing set for 4/1/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2015) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

73 AFFIDAVIT re 72 Order on Motion to Certify Class & Amended Class Notices by Steven Angell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Draft Proposed Class Notice with Highlighted Changes, # 2 Exhibit Draft Proposed Class Notice in Printer Ready Format)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

ORDER APPROVING REVISED NOTICE Re: Dkt. Nos. 73,

74

73-2. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 1/8/15. (nclc2,

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2015) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

75 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 72 Order on Motion to Certify Class To Extend Time for Filing of Motion for Final Order filed by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

76 ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION To Extend Time for Filing of Motion for Final Order 75 . Last date for plaintiffs to file motion for final approval: 2/13/2015. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015). (Entered: 01/30/2015)

77 Final MOTION 62 re 63 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent

03/19/2015

Judgment , 70 Affidavit, 72 Order on Motion to Certify Class, 69 Declaration in Support filed by Steven Angell. Motion Hearing set for 4/1/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 2/27/2015. Replies due by 3/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Class Notice-As Printed, # 2 Exhibit Class member Email)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/13/2015) (Entered: 02/14/2015)
78 Received Objection of Settlement and Written Intent to Appear in Court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(srmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2015) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/25/2015

79 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 77 Final MOTION 62 re 63 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment , 70 Affidavit, 72

03/30/2015 03/31/2015

Order on Motion to Certify Class, 69 Declaration in Support of Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed bySteven Angell. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/25/2015) (Entered: 03/25/2015)

80 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS TO INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS filed by Gregory J. Ahern, David Brady, County of Alameda, Kerry Jackson, Carla Kennedy, Brett Keteles, Gregory L. Morgado. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/30/2015) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

81 Proposed Order re 72

Order on Motion to Certify Class, 74

03/31/2015 04/01/2015
04/06/2015 04/06/2015 04/07/2015

Order Final Approval by Steven Angell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Final Settlement)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/31/2015) (Entered: 03/31/2015)

82 Proposed Order re 72 Order on Motion to Certify Class for Exoneration by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/31/2015) (Entered: 03/31/2015)

85 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Hearing re Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment 77 held on 4/1/2015. Plaintiffs' Attorneys Dan Siegel, Yolanda Huang. Defendants' Attorneys William Simmons (City of Oakland), Gregory Rockwell (County of Alameda). (FTR: 1:15pm - 1:28pm/1:37pm-1:56pm) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/1/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

83 Proposed Order For Exoneration [3rd] by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/6/2015) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

84 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to file Proposed Order of Exoneration (3rd) filed by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/6/2015) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION DISMISSING ACTION

86

AS TO INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS Gregory

Ahern, Brett Keteles, Carla Kennedy, David Brady, Gregory

Morgado, Kerry Jackson, Howard Jordan, Jeffrey Israel, Eric

Breshears, Ron Yelder, Darren Allison, Steve Tull, Edward

Tracey, Anthony Rachal and Sean Whent 80 . Signed by Judge

04/07/2015 04/07/2015
04/07/2015 04/07/2015 07/30/2015 07/30/2015

Nathanael Cousins on 4/7/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

87 FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

THIRD ORDER OF EXONERATION AND FOR SEALING

88

AND DESTRUCTION OF ARREST RECORDS, AND FOR

WITHDRAWAL AND DESTRUCTION OF DNA

SAMPLES 83 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/7/2015.

(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

89 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE THIRD ORDER FOR EXONERATION 84 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

***Civil Case Terminated pursuant to Final Order and Judgment 87 . (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

90 First Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Per Order of Court 4/7/2015 filed by Steven Angell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)

91 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 88

07/30/2015 07/30/2015

Order Supplemental filed by Steven Angell. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
92 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 90 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
93 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF EXONERATION AND TO SEAL AND DESTROY ARREST RECORDS 91 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

09/16/2020 17:12:10

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Poortenga
3:13-cv00190-NC

Billable Pages:

19

Cost:

1.90

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 2 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 3 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 4 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 5 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 6 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 7 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 8 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 9 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 10 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 11 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 12 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 13 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 14 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 15 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 16 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 17 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 18 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 19 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 20 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 21 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 22 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 23 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 24 of 25

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 25 of 25

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 STEVEN ANGELL, and others,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 CITY OF OAKLAND, and others,
15 Defendants.
16

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 62, 63, 70

17

18

This case arises out of the mass detention and arrest of individuals during an “Occupy

19 Oakland” march and protest on January 28, 2012. Before the Court are plaintiffs’

20 unopposed motion for class certification and the parties’ joint motion for preliminary

21 approval of class action settlement. Dkt. Nos. 62, 63. The Court previously denied the

22 motion for preliminary approval without prejudice due to several deficiencies in the

23 proposed settlement agreement and class notice. Dkt. No. 68. After the parties submitted a

24 revised settlement agreement and class notice, Dkt. Nos. 70-1 and 70-2, the Court held a

25 preliminary approval hearing on December 17, 2014. No objectors appeared.

26

Because the Court finds that the proposed class meets the requirements for

27 certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court GRANTS

28 plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Additionally, because the parties have made a
Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 22

1 sufficient showing for the purposes of preliminary approval, the Court GRANTS their joint

2 motion. However, because the revised proposed notice to the class continues to suffer from

3 several defects, plaintiffs must file a second revised class notice in accordance with this

4 order for the Court’s approval.

5

I. BACKGROUND

6 A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations

7

The complaint alleges that, on January 28, 2012, class members and others

8 participated in an “Occupy Oakland” political protest demonstration in Oakland, California.

9 Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 64. In the late afternoon, a group of approximately 500 to 1000 individuals

10 marched from Frank Ogawa Plaza. Id. ¶ 65. As they were marching on Broadway, all class

11 members were corralled and trapped in front of the Oakland YMCA between 23rd and 24th

12 Streets by two lines of armed police and peace officers. Id. ¶ 66. The complaint alleges

13 that the class members were pushed, clubbed, and driven into a shrinking space by these

14 two advancing lines. Id. ¶ 67. The complaint further alleges that these tactics were

15 unjustified and created a melee, filling the crowd with confusion, panic, and fear, and

16 causing injuries. Id. There was no exit except into the YMCA, and some class members

17 entered there. Id. According to the complaint, no dispersal orders were given on Broadway

18 and no one gave orders or announcements telling the marchers where to go or what to do

19 until after the police announced that the marchers were under arrest. Id. ¶ 66. The

20 complaint further alleges that the entire group was placed, without probable cause, under

21 arrest, allegedly for failure to disperse although they were given no notice or opportunity to

22 disperse. Id. ¶ 68. After the announcement of the arrest, class members requested

23 permission to disperse, which was denied. Id. Those who attempted to disperse were met

24 with the use of force, causing injuries. Id.

25

The complaint further alleges that class members corralled at the detainment area,

26 without probable cause or lawful justification, were forced to stand or sit in the street for

27 hours. Id. ¶ 70. Class members were not allowed to use toilet facilities, so the only place to

28 relieve themselves was on the street or in their clothing. Id. Some class members were

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

2

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 22

1 placed on buses and held there for additional long periods without access to toilet facilities.

2 Id. As a result, class members suffered discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation. Id.

3 Class members with medical needs were barred from taking their medications. Id.

4

According to the complaint, after detaining the class members on the street,

5 defendants tied each of the class members’ hands with plastic handcuffs behind their backs.

6 Id. ¶ 71. Class members were kept handcuffed for inordinate and unnecessarily long

7 periods of time, and handcuffs/ties were intentionally or heedlessly applied too tightly,

8 causing pain, extended discomfort, and injuries. Id. Defendants refused to loosen or

9 remove the handcuffs until the class members arrived at the jail, late that night or in the

10 early morning. Id.

11

The complaint alleges that rather than cite and release the class members, the decision

12 was made to arrest and transport them to an Alameda County jail. Id. ¶¶ 3, 69. The class

13 members were loaded onto buses and vans. Id. ¶ 72. The lengthy detention on the cold

14 street was followed with lengthy waits on the cold buses where the windows were open. Id.

15 All class members were transported to an Alameda County jail, and were imprisoned for 12

16 to 85 hours. Id. ¶ 3. Some class members were taken to Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland, but

17 the majority was taken to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin. Id. ¶ 72. Class members were driven

18 on the freeway for 45 minutes to Santa Rita Jail, enduring wind and cold. Id.

19

The complaint further alleges that the decision to transport class members to an

20 Alameda County jail subjected class members to imprisonment for long periods in

21 overcrowded and inhumane conditions, including unheated or deliberately chilled cells,

22 with limited seating, no sleeping facilities, sometimes standing room only, no toilet

23 facilities, no feminine hygiene, and no food, water, or medical care. Id. ¶¶ 3, 69. Female

24 class members were embarrassed and humiliated by the forced urination and pregnancy

25 testing. Id. ¶ 73.

26

The complaint alleges that, at Santa Rita, class members were held in extremely over-

27 crowded cells and other spaces, which lacked cots or other sleeping surfaces. Id. ¶ 74.

28 Many cells were so over-crowded that there was not room for everyone to sit or lie down on

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

3

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 22

1 the floor. Id. Phone calls were denied for long periods of time. Id. Class members were

2 denied access to legal counsel. Id. Toilets and sanitary facilities were inadequate or non-

3 existent. Id. Means for personal hygiene, particularly feminine hygiene were denied. Id.

4 Despite the winter weather, cold air was continually being blown in and class members’

5 extra clothes were taken away. Id. No one was provided with blankets or other means to

6 stay warm. Id. Some were deprived of food and water for extended periods of time. Id.

7 Class members with particular medical needs continued to be deprived of needed medical

8 care, and medication. Id. The complaint further alleges that the class members were

9 subjected to physical and mental abuse and other inhumane and unreasonable conditions of

10 confinement, which caused them to suffer pain, discomfort, distress, and injury. Id. All

11 class members at Santa Rita were held for excessive periods. Id. ¶ 76.

12

No class members were charged or prosecuted, but all now have arrest records and

13 will incur legal costs to attempt to have the arrests removed from their records. Id. ¶ 78.

14 B. Procedural History

15

This case was filed on January 14, 2013, by eight plaintiffs—Steven Angell, Miles

16 Avery, Molly Batchelder, Sri Louise also known as Louise Coles, Cicily Cooper, Shareeff

17 Elfiki, Theodore Hexter, and Lindsay Weber. See Dkt. No. 1. The proposed class alleged

18 in the complaint consists of “persons who were herded, corralled and then arrested in the

19 mass arrest that occurred on the evening of January 28, 2012 on Broadway in Oakland,

20 between 23rd and 24th Street,” and who were “detained, arrested, imprisoned and never

21 charged with any crime.” Id. ¶ 57.

22

The complaint names as defendants the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, and

23 individual defendants employed by the City and the County. See Dkt. No. 1. The

24 complaint alleges causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First,

25 Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as state law rights against false arrest and

26 false imprisonment. Id. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class, seek (1)

27 declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain defendants from continuing to violate plaintiffs’

28 federal and state constitutional and statutory rights, the protections for these rights in the

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

4

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 22

1 Oakland Crowd Management/Crowd Control Policy, and from using false arrests, false

2 imprisonment, unreasonable conditions of confinement, and other unlawful actions to

3 disrupt, interfere with and deter future demonstrations and protest activities in the City of

4 Oakland and Alameda County; (2) an injunction requiring the defendants to seal, return,

5 and/or destroy any records of plaintiffs’ arrests; and (3) monetary damages for the injuries

6 plaintiffs suffered when they were falsely detained, arrested and imprisoned. Id. ¶ 8.

7

The parties engaged in discovery, which included exchanging written discovery,

8 taking the depositions of the named plaintiffs and City and County personnel, and

9 inspections of the Santa Rita and Glenn Dyer jail facilities. Dkt. No. 19 at 2. The parties

10 participated in settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler over several

11 months. Dkt. Nos. 36, 55. As a result, the parties were able to reach a settlement in

12 September 2014. Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to certify the class, which

13 defendants do not oppose. Dkt. Nos. 62, 62-3. The parties also moved jointly for

14 preliminary approval of the settlement. Dkt. No. 63.

15

While this case was pending, the case of Spalding v. City of Oakland, No. 11-cv-

16 02867 TEH, resolved. The Spalding case was also a class action arising out of a mass arrest

17 involving the City of Oakland and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Part of the

18 resolution of Spalding included injunctive relief regarding the application of cite/release and

19 booking procedures that will be applied in multiple simultaneous arrest situations. See

20 Spalding, No. 11-cv-02867 TEH, Dkt. No. 95-1 at 7-9. Plaintiffs assert that the injunctive

21 relief obtained in Spalding addresses and resolves the injunctive relief issues raised in

22 plaintiffs’ complaint in this case and that, as a result, they are no longer requesting

23 injunctive relief. Dkt. Nos. 62 at 22 n.2; 63 at 3.

24 C. Jurisdiction

25

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

26 See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 9. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims

27 under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. All parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States

28 Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. No. 15 ¶ 13.

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

5

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 6 of 22

1 D. Overview of the Settlement Agreement

2

1. Class Definition

3

The settlement agreement defines the class as “the approximately 360 people who

4 were arrested in the mass arrest on Broadway between 23rd and 24th Streets in Oakland on

5 January 28, 2012, and who were never charged with any crime related to this arrest.” Dkt.

6 No. 70-1 at 6. The parties explained that 360 is the number of arrestees confirmed through

7 discovery. Id. n.3.

8

2. Monetary Payment to the Class

9

Under the settlement agreement, the City and the County will jointly pay the sum of

10 $1,360,000 within 15 days of the Court’s entry of final judgment. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 7.

11 Those class members who have submitted approved claims will receive an equal part of the

12 $1,360,000 payment after attorneys’ fees and costs and the class representatives’ awards

13 have been deducted from this amount. Id.

14

The settlement agreement further provides that, in the event that any check to a

15 claimant is undeliverable or is uncashed 180 days after it is placed in the mail, the funds

16 thus unclaimed will be turned over to Families With a Future, a project sponsored by Legal

17 Services for Prisoners with Children, a non-profit based in San Francisco. Dkt. No. 70-1 at

18 8.

19

3. Non-Monetary Benefits of the Settlement

20

In addition to the monetary benefits, the settlement agreement includes a stipulation

21 for the sealing and destruction of all arrest records, police reports, investigative reports,

22 booking information, online data, or any other documentation or information pertaining to

23 the arrests of the plaintiffs and those class members who submit approved claims, in the

24 possession of the City and the County. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 8. The parties stipulate that the

25 relief will be the equivalent of a determination of factual innocence pursuant to California

26 Penal Code § 851.8. Id. The parties also request a Court order in the names of all of the

27 plaintiffs and those class members who submit approved claims, stating that that they are

28 factually innocent of the charges for which they were arrested and that they are thereby

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

6

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 7 of 22

1 exonerated. Id.

2

4. Incentive Awards and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

3

Under the settlement agreement, the $1,360,000 payment includes all attorneys’ fees

4 and costs, including the costs of administering the class settlement, and the class

5 representatives’ awards approved by the Court. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 7. The settlement

6 agreement provides that the eight class representatives will each receive $9,000, or such

7 amount as the Court approves, and that class counsel will receive $350,000, or such sum as

8 the Court approves, for attorneys’ fees and costs, including all costs associated with the

9 administration of the settlement. Id.

10

5. Release of Claims

11

The settlement agreement further provides that, upon the entry of final judgment by

12 the Court, “the Plaintiffs and Claimants shall be deemed to have, and shall have, fully,

13 finally, and forever waived, released, relinquished, discharged, and dismissed all claims

14 against the Defendants, their agents, and their employees arising from the events alleged in

15 Plaintiffs’ Complaint.” Dkt. No. 70-1 at 10. “Claimants” is defined in the settlement

16 agreement as those class members who actually file claims pursuant to the procedures set

17 forth in the Court’s preliminary approval order. Id. at 6. Additionally, the settlement

18 agreement provides that “the Plaintiffs and Class Members, except those who opt out of the

19 Settlement, shall be forever barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting

20 or continuing to prosecute any action or other proceeding in any court of law or equity,

21 arbitration tribunal, or administrative forum, asserting any claims against the Defendants,

22 their agents, and their employees arising from the events alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.”

23 Id. at 10-11. The settlement agreement also includes a release by the defendants. Id. at 11.

24

The settlement agreement provides for a dismissal with prejudice of the individual

25 defendants after preliminary approval of the settlement and formal approval of the

26 settlement by the City and the County. Id. at 9-10.

27 //

28

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

7

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 8 of 22

1

6. Class Notice

2

The settlement agreement further provides that, no later than 10 days after the

3 preliminary approval of the settlement, plaintiffs will disseminate the notice of settlement

4 (including the claim and exclusion forms) by mailing the notice to each class member’s last

5 known mailing address, posting the notice on the class action website, and disseminating

6 information regarding the settlement agreement on social media. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 10. The

7 class members will then have 60 days to opt out, or file a claim form, or to object to the

8 settlement agreement following the procedure set forth in the notice. Id. For all class

9 members who fail to respond within 45 days of the mailing of the notice, plaintiffs will

10 make every effort to contact those class members through direct contact (such as phone,

11 email, Facebook, and Twitter). Id.

12

III. DISCUSSION

13 A. Class Certification

14

Class certification requires that: (1) the class be so numerous that joinder of all

15 members individually is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the

16 class; (3) the claims or defenses of the class representative must be typical of the claims or

17 defenses of the class; and (4) the person representing the class must be able fairly and

18 adequately to protect the interests of all members of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Staton

19 v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

In addition to meeting the conditions imposed by Rule 23(a), the parties seeking class

21 certification must also show that the action is maintainable under Federal Rule of Civil

22 Procedure 23(b). Plaintiffs here are seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(3), and

23 alternatively under Rule 23(b)(2) and (1). Dkt. No. 62 at 23. Plaintiffs assert that the action

24 is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3) which allows a class action to be certified if “the court

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

26 questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other

27 available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

28 23(b); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

8

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 9 of 22

1

The proposed settlement class here meets the requirements for certification under

2 Rule 23(a). First, the 360 potential class members are sufficiently numerous that joinder of

3 all members would be impracticable.

4

Second, there are questions of fact and law common to all class members, the answers

5 to which will drive the resolution of the litigation. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131

6 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). In a civil rights suit, “commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit

7 challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.”

8 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by

9 Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499 (2005). “In such circumstance, individual factual differences

10 among the individual litigants or groups of litigants will not preclude a finding of

11 commonality.” Id.

12

Here, plaintiffs claim that defendants declared an unlawful assembly and corralled

13 and arrested the entire march without notice or opportunity to disperse, and that there were

14 no individual determinations of probable cause for arrest. Dkt. No. 62 at 19. Instead,

15 plaintiffs contend that defendants created the class when they made the decision to treat the

16 entire crowd as one, encircled it and arrested every person contained within the police lines.

17 Id. Once defendants made this decision, the class members were all treated identically in

18 that they were arrested and incarcerated in an Alameda County jail where they endured

19 similar conditions, with variations in the length of time in incarceration. Id.; see also Dkt.

20 No. 62-1. In challenging defendants’ policies and practices regarding mass arrests without

21 probable cause and incarceration of individuals, plaintiffs raise common questions of law

22 and fact, such as (1) whether defendants made a lawful determination that the march was an

23 unlawful assembly; (2) whether defendants’ decision not to give warnings or an opportunity

24 to disperse before arresting the entire crowd violated the plaintiffs’ and the class members’

25 constitutional rights; (3) whether the length and conditions of incarceration violated the

26 plaintiffs’ and the class members’ constitutional rights and California Penal Code § 853.6;

27 and (4) whether the arrests and detentions violated the Oakland Police Crowd Control

28 Policy adopted as part of the settlement agreement in Coles, et al. v. City of Oakland and

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

9

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 10 of 22

1 Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, et al. v. City of Oakland, Nos.

2 03-cv-02961 TEH and 03-cv-02962 TEH. Dkt. No. 62 at 17-21. See Spalding v. City of

3 Oakland, No. 11-cv-2867 TEH, 2012 WL 994644, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012)

4 (granting class certification in similar action arising out of mass arrest and incarceration).

5

Third, the class representatives’ claims are typical of those of the class. For purposes

6 of the typicality inquiry, the named plaintiffs’ injuries need not be identical with those of

7 the other class members, “only that the unnamed class members have injuries similar to

8 those of the named plaintiffs and that the injuries result from the same, injurious course of

9 conduct.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 869. Here, this requirement is met as all of the class

10 members were arrested in a single, coordinated mass arrest at a single location, incarcerated

11 overnight and longer, and subjected to similar conditions of custody. See Dkt. Nos. 62 at

12 21-22; 62-1.

13

Fourth, there appear to be no conflicts of interest between the class representatives

14 and the class members. Plaintiffs assert that both the class representatives and the class

15 members have a common interest in ensuring that they would not be subject to mass arrests

16 without individual determinations of probable cause, a common interest in ensuring that

17 they would be cited and released rather than transported and held for overly lengthy periods

18 of time in abject conditions. Dkt. No. 62 at 22. Plaintiffs further assert that each named

19 plaintiff is willing to perform the duties of a class representative, and to pursue this lawsuit

20 vigorously on behalf of the class, and there is no basis on which to argue that their interests

21 are antagonistic to those of the class. Id. at 22-23. There is no suggestion of collusion

22 between the named plaintiffs and any of the defendants. Id. There are also no perceived

23 conflicts with class counsel. The Court finds that the named plaintiffs and their counsel will

24 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

25

Further, the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs claim

26 that defendants treated the class members as a class, as defendants encircled, arrested, and

27 imprisoned all of the class members in the same way, en masse, without making any

28 individual determinations of probable cause. Dkt. No. 62 at 24. Whether this conduct

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

10

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 11 of 22

1 violated the class members’ legal rights is a common question of law and fact. The legality

2 of defendants’ alleged failure to give the class members notice or opportunity to disperse,

3 the mass arrest, the incarceration of the entire class in jail overnight, and the failure to

4 provide the class members with basic sleeping accommodations are subject to common

5 resolution. Id. Additionally, class counsel assert that the class members’ damages are

6 generally uniform and that there were few physical injuries and low medical bills. See id. at

7 26. The common legal and fact questions represent a significant aspect of the case, and do

8 not appear to be outweighed by any questions affecting only individual members. See

9 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022 (“When common questions present a significant aspect of the

10 case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is

11 clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual

12 basis.” (quoting 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal

13 Practice & Procedure § 1778 (2d ed. 1986)).

14

Additionally, considerations of judicial economy favor litigating this case as a class

15 action. As this case involves multiple claims for relatively small sums, a class action is

16 superior to an alternative method for adjudicating the parties’ claims. See

17 Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir.

18 2001) (“[I]f plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class, some-perhaps most-will be unable to

19 proceed as individuals because of the disparity between their litigation costs and what they

20 hope to recover.”). According to the record provided, no potential class member has

21 expressed a desire to proceed independently and no unusual obstacles have appeared that

22 would make managing the class particularly difficult.

23

The Court finds that this action is maintainable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24 23(a) and (b)(3), and therefore, certifies the following class: the approximately 360 people

25 who were arrested in the mass arrest on Broadway between 23rd and 24th Streets in

26 Oakland on January 28, 2012, and who were never charged with any crime related to this

27 arrest. The Court further approves the named plaintiffs as class representatives, and

28 approves Yolanda Huang and Dan Siegel as class counsel.

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

11

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 12 of 22

1 B. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval of any settlement by

3 a certified class. Although there is a “strong judicial policy that favors settlements,

4 particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned,” Linney v. Cellular Alaska

5 P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 1998), “[t]he purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the

6 unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights,” In re

7 Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, a settlement

8 should only be approved if it is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Torrisi v.

9 Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks

10 omitted). In determining whether the proposed settlement meets this standard, the Court

11 does not have the ability “to delete, modify, or substitute certain provisions . . . . The

12 settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.” Id. Due to the dangers of collusion between

13 class counsel and the defendant, as well as the need for additional protections when the

14 settlement is not negotiated by a court designated class representative, settlement approval

15 that takes place prior to formal class certification requires a higher standard of fairness.

16 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

17

“The Court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and direct notice to the

18 class if the settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive

19 negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential

20 treatment to class representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of

21 possible approval.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. 08-cv-05198 EMC, 2011 WL

22 1627973, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011); In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d

23 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court reviews the preliminary approval factors in turn.

24

1. The Settlement Process

25

The Court first considers the means by which the parties reached their settlement.

26 Between January 2014 and the present, the parties have participated in four all day and two

27 part-day settlement conferences, and a number of telephonic conferences, with Magistrate

28 Judge Laurel Beeler. Dkt. No. 63 at 4-5. In addition, there have been numerous

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

12

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 13 of 22

1 communications between the parties. Id. The Oakland City Council and the Alameda

2 County Board of Supervisors have also had several reviews of the settlement before final

3 approval in separate closed-session meetings. Dkt. No. 63 at 8. Class representatives were

4 involved in all of the in-court settlement conferences. Id. The settlement thus appears to be

5 the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations. Accordingly, the process by

6 which the parties reached their settlement weighs in favor of preliminary approval.

7

2. The Presence of Obvious Deficiencies

8

The Court must next analyze whether there are obvious deficiencies in the settlement

9 agreement. The Court previously denied preliminary approval of the original settlement

10 agreement because of several deficiencies. Dkt. No. 68. The revised settlement agreement,

11 Dkt. No. 70-1, has cured those deficiencies.

12

First, the original settlement agreement contained an error in the definition of the

13 class, which has been corrected.

14

Second, the scope of the release in the original settlement agreement was

15 impermissibly broad as it did not specify who is being released. While the scope of the

16 release in the revised settlement agreement is still broad, it is acceptable because the claims

17 released are limited to those “against the Defendants, their agents, and their employees

18 arising from the events alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.” Dkt. No. 70-1 at 10-11; see Hesse

19 v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A settlement agreement may preclude a

20 party from bringing a related claim in the future even though the claim was not presented

21 and might not have been presentable in the class action, but only where the released claim is

22 based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class

23 action.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Additionally, the release has

24 been revised so that it does not include claims by class members who have opted out.

25

Third, the original settlement agreement did not provide for a cy pres recipient or

26 specify what would happen with the funds if a check is undeliverable or remains uncashed.

27 The revised settlement agreement names as a cy pres recipient Families With a Future, a

28 project sponsored by Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a non-profit based in San

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

13

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 14 of 22

1 Francisco. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 8. The designated cy pres recipient appears to meet the

2 requirements for approval set forth in Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir.

3 2012) (holding that there must be “a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy

4 pres beneficiaries” and that the cy pres award must be “guided by (1) the objectives of the

5 underlying statute(s) and (2) the interests of the silent class members, . . . , and must not

6 benefit a group too remote from the plaintiff class”). At the preliminary approval hearing,

7 class counsel explained that the major injuries in this case were the arrest and the

8 incarceration, which affected the families of the class members. Counsel further explained

9 that Families With a Future was chosen as a cy pres recipient because it is dedicated to

10 helping incarcerated people integrate in the society, and that while it is based in San

11 Francisco, its geographic focus is Northern California, and the Bay Area in particular.

12

Fourth, the original settlement agreement provided that class counsel “shall” receive

13 $350,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs and that the class representatives “shall” each

14 receive $9,000. The revised settlement agreement clarifies that these amounts are subject

15 to Court approval and that the Court may award a different amount than requested. Dkt.

16 No. 70-1 at 7.

17

While the Court is not approving the amount of the requested attorneys’ fees and

18 costs at this stage, the Court also notes that the supplemental declaration of Yolanda Huang

19 shows different numbers for the hours spent on the case for herself, Dan Siegel, and Claire

20 Lacey, compared to the amounts in her first declaration submitted in support of preliminary

21 approval (compare Dkt. No. 70 at 5 with Dkt. No. 63-1 at 2). The supplemental declaration

22 also has different amounts for the costs (actual and estimated) compared to the first

23 declaration. Id. As part of plaintiffs’ motion for final approval, Yolanda Huang must

24 provide an explanation for these discrepancies, and submit either her time records for her

25 work on this case or a reasonably detailed breakdown of how many hours she spent on the

26 different categories of activities. Additionally, Yolanda Huang must provide a breakdown

27 by category of the estimated costs of settlement administration to allow the Court to better

28 assess their reasonableness. Finally, Dan Siegel’s declaration, Dkt. No. 69 ¶ 23, states that

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

14

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 15 of 22

1 two other attorneys devoted “significant time” to the case. One of the attorneys, Anne

2 Weills, is not included in the chart summarizing the total attorney hours, see Dkt. No. 70 at

3 5. Additionally, no information is provided on these two attorneys’ experience or how they

4 spent the time billed on this case. The motion for final approval must address these issues.

5

Accordingly, the lack of obvious deficiencies in the revised settlement agreement

6 weighs in favor of granting preliminary approval.

7

3. Preferential Treatment

8

The third factor the Court considers is whether the settlement agreement provides

9 preferential treatment to any class member. Under the settlement, the monetary recovery

10 will be distributed to class members who have submitted approved claims pro rata after

11 deduction of the attorneys’ fees and costs and the class representatives’ awards. Dkt. No.

12 70-1 at 7. Class counsel explained that the decision to apply a pro rata allocation was made

13 unanimously by the named plaintiffs, and was the result of extensive discussion among

14 plaintiffs in consultation with a number of class members. Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 10. Class counsel

15 asserts that, after evaluating the injuries received through this incident, plaintiffs

16 unanimously agreed that the overriding harm was the corralling, arrest, and incarceration.

17 Id. Plaintiffs determined that while class members experienced a different length of time of

18 incarceration, the amount of time was a secondary harm because everyone was held in

19 similar conditions, namely overcrowded, filthy, cold, no access to phones, terrible food,

20 lack of feminine hygiene supplies, and without space to sit or lie down. Id. Class counsel

21 further explained that there were few physical injuries. Dkt. No. 62 at 26. Accordingly, the

22 proposed distribution of the settlement funds does not appear to grant undue preferential

23 treatment to any class members.

24

While the settlement agreement authorizes an incentive award to each of the eight

25 class representatives of $9,000, this incentive award, should the Court finally approve it,

26 does not render the settlement unfair, as “the Ninth Circuit has recognized that service

27 awards to named plaintiffs in a class action are permissible and do not render a settlement

28 unfair or unreasonable.” Harris, 2011 WL 1627973, at *9 (citing Staton, 327 F.3d at 977).

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

15

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 16 of 22

1 Additionally, while the Court is not approving the amount of the incentive award at this

2 stage, the Court notes that the proposed incentive awards here are on the high end but not

3 outside the range of reasonableness. See Spalding, No. 11-cv-02867 TEH, Dkt. Nos. 95-1,

4 99 (approving $9,000 incentive award); Covillo v. Specialtys Cafe, No. 11-cv-00594 DMR,

5 2014 WL 954516, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) (approving $8,000 incentive award);

6 Barel v. Bank of Am., 255 F.R.D. 393, 402 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (approving $10,000 incentive

7 award). Class counsel asserts that the class representatives each had to give a full

8 deposition, spent several long days in court during settlement conferences, and were in

9 close touch with class members and class counsel throughout the nearly two and a half year

10 process since the mass arrest. Dkt. No. 63 at 8. These assertions must be supported by a

11 competent declaration at the final approval stage.

12

The Court finds no indication of unfair treatment to certain members of the class, and

13 therefore this factor supports preliminary approval.

14

4. Whether the Settlement Falls Within the Range of Possible Approval

15

Finally, the Court must determine whether the proposed settlement falls within the

16 range of possible approval. “To evaluate the range of possible approval criterion, which

17 focuses on substantive fairness and adequacy, courts primarily consider plaintiff’s expected

18 recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Harris, 2011 WL 1627973, at

19 *9 (quoting Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1125 (E.D. Cal.

20 2009)). To determine whether an agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

21 reasonable, the Court may preview the factors that ultimately inform final approval: “[1] the

22 strength of plaintiff’s case; [2] the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further

23 litigation; [3] the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; [4] the amount

24 offered in settlement; [5] the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the

25 proceedings; [6] the experience and views of counsel; [7] the presence of a governmental

26 participant; and [8] the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Id. at *9

27 (citing Churchill Village v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). As part of this

28 assessment, the Court must “compare the value of the settlement against the expected

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

16

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 17 of 22

1 recovery at trial” by estimating “the maximum amount of damages recoverable in a

2 successful litigation and compare that with the settlement amount.” Id. at *11 (internal

3 quotation marks omitted). The Court will address first the value of the settlement.

4

a. The Value of the Settlement Supports Preliminary Approval.

5

Under the proposed settlement, class members who submit approved claims will

6 receive an estimated payment of approximately $2,600. Dkt. No. 63 at 7. Class counsel

7 notes that plaintiffs have not claimed special damages, such as wage loss or medical bills.

8 Id. Class counsel calculated that the class was incarcerated as a whole for a total of

9 approximately 13,500 hours. Class counsel asserts that, using a possible damages rate of

10 $250 an hour based on a comparison with other cases, the class could see a potential

11 recovery of $3.375 million if the case proceeded to trial. Based on these estimates, the

12 recovery per class member under the settlement is approximately 28% of the estimated

13 maximum recovery. Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 11. The settlement appears to provide for a fair amount

14 of monetary recovery. See Spalding, No. 11-cv-02867 TEH , Dkt. Nos. 99, 95-1, 97

15 (granting final approval of settlement including total monetary settlement of $1,025,000 for

16 145-149 potential class members).

17

In addition to the monetary benefits, the settlement provides for those class members

18 who submit approved claims that their arrest records will be sealed and destroyed and that

19 they will be provided with a stipulated finding of factual innocence, to eliminate any

20 possible adverse effect of the arrest on employment or licensing. Dkt. No. 63 at 7.

21

The Court finds that the proposed settlement confers substantial benefit on the class

22 and that this factor supports preliminary approval.

23

b. The Remaining Factors Weigh in Favor of Preliminary Approval.

24

Turning to the other factors informing settlement approval, such as the strength of

25 plaintiffs’ case, the extent of discovery completed at this stage of the proceedings, the risk

26 of maintaining class action status, and the risk, expense, and likely duration of the litigation,

27 the Court finds that all weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement

28 agreement.

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

17

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 18 of 22

1

Plaintiffs assert that it is not certain that they would prevail at trial in light of

2 defendants’ defenses concerning probable cause for plaintiffs’ arrests and their processing

3 at Santa Rita. Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 11. Plaintiffs further assert that there is a substantial issue

4 regarding whether the City defendants gave adequate notice to the class members regarding

5 whether their assembly was unlawful before arresting them. Id. The City defendants have

6 asserted that the professed purpose of the day’s event was to illegally occupy a building and

7 confront the police, and that the crowd’s failure to disperse from near 19th

8 Avenue/Telegraph (Rashida Muhammad St.) justified the mass arrest. Dkt. No. 62 at 9.

9 Additionally, there is a substantial issue here about whether the delay by the County in

10 releasing the class members constitutes a constitutional violation. Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 11.

11 Further litigation would involve considerable costs and a significant investment of time by

12 plaintiffs, defendants, and their respective counsel, and would burden the resources of the

13 Court. Dkt. No. 63 at 7. Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the proposed settlement

14 confers substantial benefits on the class and the general public, and that it is fair and

15 reasonable and in the best interests of the class. Id. at 5. According to class counsel, the

16 overwhelming response by the class members has been positive and no objections are

17 anticipated. Dkt. No. 63-1 ¶ 9.

18

Because the balance of the factors considered by the Court weighs in favor of

19 preliminary approval, the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is granted.

20 C. Class Notice

21

1. Method of Providing Notice

22

The settlement agreement provides for mailing the notice to each class member’s last

23 known mailing address, posting the notice on the class action website, and disseminating

24 information regarding the settlement agreement on social media. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 10.

25 Class counsel assert that numerous class members have stayed in regular communication

26 with class counsel since the date of the arrests and during the pendency of this litigation.

27 Dkt. No. 63-1 ¶¶ 6-7. In addition, the class representatives have remained active and

28 involved in community activities and maintained regular contact with many of the class

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

18

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 19 of 22

1 members who are aware that a settlement is pending. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.

2

Class counsel and plaintiffs further assert that they have compiled a comprehensive

3 and updated contact list for class members, many of whom have provided phone numbers

4 and email addresses. Dkt. No. 63-1 ¶ 8. According to class counsel, many social media

5 platforms are in place to disseminate the notice and information about this litigation. Id.

6 Class counsel also informed the Court that the class action website has been made live, and

7 that the website requests that potential class members email class counsel with their names,

8 current mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers. Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 6. At the

9 hearing, class counsel stated that she had mailing addresses for everyone and had received

10 updated addresses from approximately 130 class members.

11

The Court approves the method of notice provided in the settlement agreement, and in

12 addition, the Court orders that the notice be disseminated by email, to the extent email

13 addresses are available to class counsel. The Court finds that the method of notice so

14 ordered provides the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances. See Fed. R.

15 Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

16

2. Contents of the Notice

17

As to the contents of the notice to the class, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

18 Procedure requires that “[t]he notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily

19 understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii)

20 the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance

21 through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class

22 any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and

23 (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).” Fed. R. Civ.

24 P. 23(c)(2)(B).

25

Here, the proposed class notice, Dkt. No. 70-2, describes the nature of the action, the

26 definition of the class, and the class-wide claims. The proposed notice further explains that

27 class members may appear through an attorney and that the Court will exclude those

28 members requesting exclusion. The notice also specifies the time requirements and manner

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

19

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 20 of 22

1 of requesting exclusion, as well as the binding effect of a class-wide judgment. In addition,

2 the notice explains that class members may object, indicates the time and place of the final

3 approval hearing, provides information regarding the attorneys’ fees and class

4 representatives’ incentive awards, and indicates that additional information regarding the

5 settlement is available through class counsel, whose contact information is provided in the

6 notice. The notice also explains how the settlement fund will be allocated, and points to the

7 website that contains additional information about this case and the settlement.

8

However, the proposed notice contains the following deficiencies:

9

1. The proposed class notice contains references to page numbers but there are no

10 page numbers on the document filed with the Court, Dkt. No. 70-2.

11

2. Option 5 “Object to the Settlement” under “YOUR CHOICES,” must be

12 capitalized to be consistent with the other options. Dkt. No. 70-2 at 2.

13

3. The definition of the class in the proposed notice must be consistent with the

14 definition of the class certified by the Court. For example, sections 7 and 9 of the proposed

15 notice under “WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?,” fail to refer to the precise location of the

16 arrest as defined in the class definition, i.e., “on Broadway between 23rd and 24th Streets in

17 Oakland.” Dkt. No. 70-2 at 7.

18

4. Section 10 of the proposed notice, under “THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS –

19 WHAT YOU GET,” states that the class representatives and class counsel “will” receive

20 certain amounts from the total settlement. Dkt. No. 70-2 at 7. This section must be revised

21 to clarify that these are proposed amounts subject to the approval of the Court.

22 Additionally, the same section must be revised to add the following (addition noted in

23 italics): “The exact amount of money you will receive depends on the number of timely

24 valid claims received and the amounts approved by Court for attorneys’ fees and costs and

25 class representatives’ incentive awards.” Id.

26

5. Section 13 of the proposed notice, under “WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?,”

27 must explicitly inform the class members of the scope of the class release as provided in the

28

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

20

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 21 of 22

1 settlement agreement, rather than merely refer to the settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 70-2

2 at 9.

3

6. The proposed notice is confusing as to what is required to object to the

4 settlement. Option 5 “Object to the Settlement” under “YOUR CHOICES,” states that a

5 class member may “either” write “or” speak to the Court. Dkt. No. 70-2 at 2. By contrast,

6 section 17 states “To object, you must send a letter . . . .” Id. at 10. Additionally, section 18

7 states that a class member “may” ask the Court by letter for permission to speak at the final

8 approval hearing but does not make clear whether such letter is required in order for a class

9 member to speak at the hearing. Id. at 11. Section 18 of the proposed notice also

10 erroneously cross-references section 14 instead of section 17. The notice must be revised to

11 clarify the class members’ options and what is required to object.

12

7. Sections 15 and 16 of the proposed notice, under “WHAT ARE YOUR

13 OPTIONS?,” erroneously refer to “Exclusion Claim Form.” Dkt. No. 70-2 at 9-10. These

14 sections must be revised to clarify that there are two separate forms—an “Exclusion Form”

15 and a “Claim Form.”

16

8. The Exclusion Form erroneously directs class members to mail it to the Court

17 instead of class counsel (compare to section 15 of the proposed class notice). Dkt. No. 70-2

18 at 12.

19

9. The proposed notice misspells the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s name. Dkt.

20 No. 70-2 at 4, 11.

21

IV. CONCLUSION

22

The Court certifies the proposed class, grants preliminary approval of the revised

23 settlement agreement, and approves the proposed method of notice. The Court also

24 approves the proposed class counsel and class representatives.

25

Class counsel must file a second revised proposed notice, claim form, and exclusion

26 form correcting the above deficiencies by January 12, 2015. The date of the preliminary

27 approval of the settlement will be deemed to be the date on which the Court issues an order

28 approving the proposed form of notice.

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

21

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 72 Filed 01/05/15 Page 22 of 22

1

Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval, and any supplemental filings in support of the

2 requested incentive awards and attorneys’ fees and costs, must be filed within 14 days of

3 the date on which the notice is disseminated to the class members as provided in the

4 settlement agreement. Class counsel must file a supplemental declaration by March 30,

5 2015, informing the Court of the number of claims forms, exclusion forms, and objections

6 received.

7

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on April 1, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. in

8 Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

9 California.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Date: January 5, 2015

12

_________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 13-cv-00190 NC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION

22

AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 13

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3

4

STEVEN ANGELL, MILES AVERY, 5 MOLLY BATCHELDER, SRI LOUISE

Case No. C13-0190 NC

6 AKA LOUISE COLES, CICILY COOPER,

SHAREEF ELFIKI, THEODORE

[PROPOSED 3rd ] THIRD

7 HEXTOR, and LINDSAY WEBER,

ORDER OF EXONERATION AND FOR

8 individually and on behalf of others similarly SEALING AND DESTRUCTION OF

situated,

ARREST RECORDS, AND FOR

9

WITHDRAWAL AND DESTRUCTION OF

Plaintiffs,

10

vs.

DNA SAMPLES

11 CITY OF OAKLAND, COUNTY OF

12 ALAMEDA, HOWARD JORDAN,

13

JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON,

14 STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY,

15

ANTHONY RACHAL, SEAN WHENT, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT KETELES,

16 CARLA KENNEDY, DAVID BRADY, GREGORY L. MORGADO, KERRY
17 JACKSON, DOES 1-250,

18 Defendants.

19

20 Pursuant to the Stipulation of the City of Oakland and Chief of Police Whent on behalf

21 of the arresting agency, the Oakland Police Department; this Court hereby EXONERATES

22 and finds each of the persons listed below FACTUALLY INNOCENT of all charges for

23 which they were arrested by the Oakland Police on January 28, 2012.

24

This Court, having found the below-listed persons to be factually innocent of the

25 charges for which the arrests were made, orders Defendants, the Department of Justice, and

26 any other law enforcement agency which participated in the arrest of the below named

27 individuals on January 28, 2012, to seal all records of their arrest on January 28, 2012, and to

28 destroy said records. [Cal. Penal Code §858.1 (b)]

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 1 of 1

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 13

1

The destruction of arrest records pursuant to this Court’s order shall be accomplished

2 by permanent obliteration of all entries or notations upon the records pertaining to the arrest,

3 and the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest never occurred.

4 However, where the only entries on the record pertain to the arrest and the record can be

5 destroyed without necessarily affecting the destruction of other records, the document

constituting the record shall be physically destroyed. [See Cal. Penal ode §851.8(j)] 6

For those individuals who were charged with a felony and were required to provide a 7

DNA sample prior to release, said DNA profiles shall be expunged and all such DNA 8

samples withdrawn and destroyed. 9

The arrests of the below-listed persons on January 28, 2012 are deemed not to have 10
occurred and pursuant to this Court’s order, the below-listed persons may answer accordingly 11
any question relating to its occurrence. [See Cal Penal Code §851.8(f)] 12
Plaintiffs are ordered to file, under seal, a more detailed list of the below-listed persons 13
which will include their dates of birth and Alameda County Sheriff’s identification numbers 14
provided (PFN numbers). Plaintiffs shall serve a copy to Defendants for the sole purpose of 15
facilitating arrest expungement and DNA withdrawal pursuant to this Court’s 16
order. Defendants will provide a copy of the Court order to the California Department of 17
Justice, along with the detailed list of Plaintiffs and of all Claimants, and advise said agency 18
of the fact that the records of their January 28, 2012 arrests have been rendered obsolete on 19
the basis of a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code § 851.8, which shall
20 include expungement of all DNA profiles obtained and to request that any DNA samples be
21 withdrawn and destroyed.

22 PERSONS WHO ARE FOUND FACTUALLY INNOCENT AND EXONERATED:
23 A. Charged with Misdemeanor(s)

24 Miles Avery

25 Molly Batchelder

26

Cicily Cooper

27

Shareef Elfiki

28

Theodore Hexter

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 13

1

Sri Louise Aka Louise Coles

2

Lindsay Weber

3

Emily Elizabeth Algire

4

Ward Robert Anderson

5

Amanda Armstrong-Price aka Matthew Palmer Armstrong

Ariella Aronstam-Powers aka Ariella Powers 6

Joseph Michael Barrett 7

Anna Basalaev-Binder aka Anna Basalacy-Binder 8

Russell George Bates 9

Sarah Baracks 10
Dixon Beatty Aka Ramsey Dixon Beatty 11
Kimberly Michelle Beavers 12
Stella Fay Beckman 13
Jeremy James Begin 14
Philip Bene 15
Kelsey Elisabeth Berg 16
Noah Kenney Berlove 17
Barbara Anne Bettenburg 18
Sarah Danielle Bird 19
Lara Bitar
20 Dan Sigurl Borgstrom
21 Kevin Brackett

22 Michael Shane Boyle
23 Benjamin James Braley

24 Benjamin Drew Breedlove

25 Joseph Paul Briones

26

Mengesha Lee Brody aka Brody Mengesha Lee

27

Kristopher Halliday Brown

28

Claire Megan Buss

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 3 of 3

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 13

1

Rachael Jennifer Byrne

2

David Ryan Cantor

3

Angel Faith Castellon

4

Vanessa Zoe Ceja

5

Yael Chanoff

Louis Dominic Chavez 6

Christopher Chitty 7

Honest Chung 8

Michael Thomas Clemmons 9

John Piers Cliffe Aka Bobby Donnehoo 10
Joshua Clover 11
Laura Elizabeth Copeland 12
Angela Marie Coppola 13
Marjorie Coshnear 14
Shalin Mikkol Craig 15
Evan Cassidy Cross 16
Rebecca Crump 17
Lisa Curran 18
Isaac Walker Dalto 19
Clara Sage Daims
20 Michael Kahoku Damaso
21 Kristopher L. Daum

22 Dylan O'Brien Davis
23 Carl John Davison

24 Allison Christine Deger

25 Sarah Denton

26

Eric Ernesto DeSouza

27

Zerena Yesenya Diaz

28

Florence Lewbel Dickerson

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 4 of 4

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 13

1

Cannon Dill

2

Sandy Park Dimalanta

3

Tyler James Disney

4

Nicholas Doliber

5

Robert Larry Donohoe

Charles Power Dubbe 6

David Kenneth Easlick 7

Michelle Simone Edwards 8

Alyssa Theia Eisenberg 9

John Barton Elliott 10
Scott C. Elliott 11
Natalie Excoffier 12
Gaie Ezer 13
Ryan Rutherford Farley 14
Steven Farmer 15
David Firestein 16
Michael James Fitzpatrick 17
Lorea Emmanuelle Ruth Foinels 18
Emily Rose Fowler 19
Jackson James Fowler
20 Nathaniel Freiburger
21 Gabriella Johnston Fritz

22 Jackqueline Frost
23 Cailyn Ariel Furrer

24 Jeff David Galvao Aka Jeffrey David Calvao

25 Max Gasner

26

Juan Manuel Garcia

27

Jacob Matthew Gelender

28

Stephan Georgiou

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 5 of 5

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 6 of 13

1

Kim Lindale Gibler

2

Brian Francis Crow Glasscock

3

Diego Glusberg

4

Jessica N. Golden

5

Augustine Tino Gonzales

Michael Wesley Grace 6

Rebecca Dayle Greene 7

Zachary Seth Greer 8

Zachary Haber 9

Michael Christian Haley 10
Karen Lee Hancock 11
Courtney Hanson 12
Dylan Hararah 13
Jamie Leroy Harris 14
Thomas Andrew Helme 15
Jose Hernandez 16
Joshua Scott Hewitt 17
Tyler Anthony Hinton 18
Hannah Lee Hoffman 19
Sarah Hollman
20 Sara Husain
21 Emily Ingraham

22 Miles Ingraham
23 Keli Iwamoto

24 Cody James

25 Spencer Janyk

26

Francis Jervis

27

Allyson Elizabeth Johnson

28

Brigitte AnneJ ohnson

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 6 of 6

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 7 of 13

1

Deanna Rose Johnson

2

Jedediah Michael Johnson

3

Lauren Elizabeth Johnson

4

Leslie Margaret Johnson

5

Paula Graciela Kahn

Morgan Andrea Geissler Kanninen 6

Melvin Murice Kelley aka Melvin Maurice Kelley 7

Orion Jason Andrew Kellogg 8

Kyle Clifford Kessler 9

Nora Khouri 10
Alexander SunYoung Kim 11
Walter Kim 12
Jacquelyn Kingkade 13
Spencer Lawrence Kobylka 14
David Lawrence Kubicz 15
Matt W. Lambert 16
Clare Bridget La Presle 17
Samuel Phillip Lavigne 18
Robert Patrick Lee 19
Ryan Giljuu Lee
20 Alan Hazel Legorreta
21 Claire Julietta Lesnick aka Claire L. Lesnick

22 Martha Louise Lincoln
23 Evan Frank Loker

24 Omar Lopez

25 Amanda Grace Low

26

Jennie Hang Lu

27

Martin A. Mackerel

28

Callie Elizabeth Maidhof

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 7 of 7

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 8 of 13

1

Kimberly Marks

2

Richard Allen Marler

3

Gricelda Gutierrez Martin

4

Elena Martinez

5

Cepano Mashiahof

Dustin Paolo Matchett-Morales aka Dustin Matchett 6

Thomas William Matzat 7

Lucas Cole McCabe 8

Nicholas Cole McClung 9

John Woodson McComb 10
Gregory Eugene McGarry 11
Alexander McGee 12
Terrence John McNamara 13
Floyd Dewane Montgomery Jr. 14
David Montoya 15
Emily Morrison 16
Jean Ritchie Mortensen 17
Selmane Naitamar 18
John Neesbye-Hansen Aka John Hansen 19
Jonathan Nelson
20 Celeste Obomsawin
21 William Finnin O’Connor aka William Finuin Connor

22 Carla Orendorff
23 Varun Pande

24 Jack Alexander Perkins

25 Adrianne Pigula aka Adruabbe Barber Pigula

26

Nathan Pitts

27

Christina Plumb

28

Gregory Michael Plummer

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 8 of 8

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 9 of 13

1

Antal Csaba Polony

2

Steven A. Porter

3

Lane Cody Powell

4

Jeb Purucker

5

Magali Rabasa

Sarah Radford 6

Katie Rapp 7

Ina Adele Ray 8

Christian A. Ream 9

William Heman Joachin Regalado 10
Naomi Masako Reagan 11
Jessica Andrea Rey 12
Jill Christine Richards 13
Forrest Ripley-Phipps 14
Muneeza Rizvi 15
Kevin Thomas Robishaw 16
Daniel Rodis 17
Amanda Naiara Rodriguerz-Archer 18
Kimberly Renne Rojas 19
Theocharis Theodosiou Roussos
20 Donovan Russell
21 Justin Alan Ryan

22 Lauren Quinn Salter
23 Azusa Sato

24 Katherine Scheel

25 Peter Scherer

26

Jan Schifter

27

Javier Jeffery Sethness

28

Ian David Sharp

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 9 of 9

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 10 of 13

1

Leah Z. Sharp

2

Douglas M. Schneider

3

Michael Joseph Shane

4

Michael Alexander Shortt

5

Gabrielle Silverman

William Macarthur Skewes-Cox 6

Matthew Aaron Smaldone 7

Carlton Ray Smith 8

Lauren Smith 9

William F. Sonne 10
Yasin Frank Southall 11
Frank Rogers Sowokinos 12
Andrew Blake Spencer 13
Stasha Stahl 14
Zachary Stevens 15
Nellie Stokeld 16
Janice Yvonne Suess 17
Karolina Szymanska 18
Kevin Takalo 19
Brandon Tauszik
20 Owen Thaxton
21 Jennifer April Tifft

22 Kenji Tomari
23 Justin Tombolesi

24 Jordan Matthews Towers

25 Wendy Trevino

26

Benjamin Truskier

27

Bernardo David Tubbs

28

Celeste Turconi Aka Celeste Brodie

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 10 of 10

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 11 of 13

1

Michelle Renee Ty

2

Jeremy Lawrence Tyler

3

Daniela Urban

4

Randy Utz

5

Daphne Vander Decken

Cameron Mark Vanderscoff 6

Matthew Van Saun 7

Vishrut Arya aka Arya Vishrut 8

Rebecca VonBehren 9

Meghan VonGremp 10
Adam M. Weathers 11
Matthew Weathers 12
Courtney Wentz 13
Bryan Andrew Westfall 14
Alexander White 15
Nyle White 16
Edward Wildanger 17
Randolph Wilkins 18
Ann Wilkismeyer 19
Damon Williams
20 Jami Williams
21 Cole Willsea

22 Terence Yancey
23 Jingtian Yu

24 Muchq Ali Zaidi

25 Patria Zandi

26

Laura Zelko

27

Sami Zerrade

28

Noah Y. Zimmerman

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 11 of 11

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 12 of 13

1

Michael Scott Davis

2

Olivia Gubser

3

Genesis Quiroz

4

B. Charged with Misdemeanor and Felony and DNA Sample Taken

5

Steven Angell

Anwar Adem 6

Hadas Alterman 7

Freydoon Azimi 8

Nicholas Neal Barclay-Havlin 9

Hanora Rochelle Bauer aka Manora Bauer 10
Sean Paul Betouliere 11
Ian Van Billett 12
Nadine Sofia Brennan 13
Adam Troy Briggs 14
Dylan Alexander Brignon 15
Everardo Bautista Calderon 16
Dante Cano 17
Tobi Geyl Chase 18
Gildo Louis Epis Jr. 19
Eric Leighton Forsman
20 Joesph Leonard Glasner
21 Anastasia Gomes

22 Lev Gorelov aka Lev Yui Goelov
23 Susan Lea Guarmmagnotti aka Susan Lea Quarm-Magnotti

24 Clint Anthony Hayden

25 Jessamyn Hannah Hise

26

Sean Patrick Keaveny

27

Taylor Anne Kohles

28

Fatima Maria Macdonald

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 12 of 12

Case 3:13-cv-00190-NC Document 88 Filed 04/07/15 Page 13 of 13

1

Laura Renata Martin

2

Ethan Sawyer McHugh-Merrill

3

Edward F. Miller

4

Jose Montenegro

5

Maria Isabel Montenegro

William Finnin O'Connor aka William Finuin Connor 6

Donna Maribel Olivera 7

Dennis Ray Powell Jr. 8

Mohamed Ali Shehk 9

Ian Michael Steinman 10
Geoffrey Thorton aka Adeline Cora Tealle 11
Michael Veremans 12
Hannapesha Wolman-Clapsadle aka Hanna Clapsadle aka Hannapesha Weber 13
IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 Dated:_________A_p_ri_l_7_____, 2015 16

TATES DISTRICT CO

UNITED S
ALIFORNIA

URT NORTH

17

18

_H_O__N_._N__A_T_H__A_GN__AR_EA_L_N_C_T_OE_UD_S__IN__S_______________

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins

22 23

ERN DISTRICT OF C

24

25

26

27

28

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. [Proposed] Order of Exoneration and Destruction of Arrest Records, And for Withdrawal and Destruction of

DNA Samples"

Page 13 of 13

 
 1 YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543 P.O. Box 5475
2 Berkeley, CA 94705 3 Tel: (510) 329-2140/ Fax: (510) 580-9410

4 DAN SIEGEL SBN 56400

5

ANNE WEILLS SBN 139845 SIEGEL & YEE

6 499 14th Street, Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94612 7 Tel: (510) 839-1200/ Fax: (510) 444-6698

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 STEVEN ANGELL, et al. and on

10 behalf of the proposed class

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 STEVEN ANGELL, MILES AVERY,

Case No. C13-0190 NC

MOLLY BATCHELDER, SRI LOUISE also 16 known as Louise Coles, CICILY COOPER,

17 SHAREEF ELFIKI, THEODORE HEXTOR, LINDSAY WEBER, individually
18 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

EXHIBIT 1 (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT) TO JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

21 CITY OF OAKLAND, COUNTY OF

22 ALAMEDA, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS,

23 RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON,

24 STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL, SEAN WHENT,

25 GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT KETELES,

26

CARLA KENNEDY, DAVID BRADY, GREGORY L. MORGADO, KERRY

27 JACKSON, DOES 1-250,

28

Defendants.

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 1 of 13

1 YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543 P.O. Box 5475
2 Berkeley, CA 94705 3 Tel: (510) 329-2140/ Fax: (510) 580-9410

4 DAN SIEGEL SBN 56400

5

ANNE WEILLS SBN 139845 SIEGEL & YEE

6 499 14th Street, Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94612 7 Tel: (510) 839-1200/ Fax: (510) 444-6698

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 STEVEN ANGELL, et al. and on

10 behalf of the proposed class

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 STEVEN ANGELL, MILES AVERY,

Case No. C13-0190 NC

MOLLY BATCHELDER, SRI LOUISE also 16 known as Louise Coles, CICILY COOPER,

17 SHAREEF ELFIKI, THEODORE HEXTOR, LINDSAY WEBER, individually

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

18 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21 CITY OF OAKLAND, COUNTY OF

22 ALAMEDA, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS,

23 RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON,

24 STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL, SEAN WHENT,

25 GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT KETELES,

26

CARLA KENNEDY, DAVID BRADY, GREGORY L. MORGADO, KERRY

27 JACKSON, DOES 1-250,

28

Defendants.

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 1 of 13

1

2

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

3 Plaintiffs STEVEN ANGELL, MILES AVERY, MOLLY BATCHELDER, SRI LOUISE 4 AKA LOUISE COLES, CICILY COOPER, SHAREEF ELFIKI, THEODORE HEXTOR, 5 LINDSAY WEBER, on behalf of themselves and the class; Defendants CITY OF 6 OAKLAND, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON 7 YELDER, DARREN ALLISON, STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY 8 RACHAL, SEAN WHENT (hereinafter “OAKLAND DEFENDANTS”); and Defendants 9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT KETELES, CARLA 10 KENNEDY, DAVID BRADY, GREGORY L. MORGADO, and KERRY JACKSON, 11 (hereinafter “COUNTY DEFENDANTS”); by and through their respective counsel, agree

12 and stipulate as follows:

13

I. THE LITIGATION

14

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the City of

15 Oakland and a number of Oakland police officers, and against the County of Alameda, its

16 Sheriff, and senior deputies of the Sheriff’s Office, asserting violations of their First, Fourth,

17 and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their rights under California state law, arising from a

18 mass arrest which occurred on January 28, 2012. Approximately 360 Class Members were

19 engaged in a march and demonstration protesting the economic inequalities and the financial

20 disparities between the 99% and the 1%. Three hundred and sixty (360) Class Members were

21 arrested on Broadway between 23rd and 24th Streets. Plaintiffs allege that the arrests were

22 conducted without a dispersal order first having been given at that location or an opportunity

23 to disperse. Plaintiffs allege that the mass arrests were violations of Oakland’s own Crowd

24 Control Policies in addition to being violations of federal and state constitutional protections

25 and state laws. Defendants deny the allegations.

26

Following the arrests by the Oakland Police, class members were handcuffed, detained

27 on the streets, placed in the custody of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and transported

28 to Alameda County jails, where, they contend, they were held for between 12 and 80 hours

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 2 of 13

1 before being cited and released for failure to disperse in violation of California Penal Code
2 409, a misdemeanor. Plaintiffs contend the booking and detention violated California state
3 law providing for the citation and release of misdemeanor arrestees, as well as the First,
4 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs also contend that while on the street and
5 during transport, they were painfully restrained by plastic handcuffs, and not given access to
toilet facilities. They further contend that they were held in severely overcrowded and 6
unsanitary holding cells that were cold, lacked adequate seating, had no beds or bedding, and 7
lacked telephones. While held in jail, Class Members were unable to contact family or 8
friends, many for up to 24 hours rather than the 3 hours required by Penal Code §851.5. 9
Defendants deny these allegations. 10
Plaintiffs requested monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, an injunction to 11
prevent defendants from continuing to violate Plaintiffs’ rights, and an order requiring 12
Defendants to seal and destroy all records derived from this arrest. (Class Action Complaint 13
Docket No. 1.) 14
While this case was pending, the case of Spalding v. City of Oakland, C11-02867, 15
resolved. The Spalding case was also a class action arising out of mass arrest involving the 16
City of Oakland and the County of Alameda Sheriff’s Offices. Part of the resolution of 17
Spalding included injunctive relief primarily on the application of Cite/Release and Booking 18
Procedures that will be applied in multiple simultaneous arrest situations, which addressed 19
and resolved the injunctive relief issues raised in plaintiffs’ complaint. The resolutions 20
included amendment of the Oakland Police Department’s Crowd Control and Crowd 21 Management Policy, adopted on October 4, 2013.1 22

23 1 VIII. CITE/RELEASE AND BOOKING PROCEDURES

24

A. Individuals arrested for minor offenses may be cited and released in compliance with Penal Code §853.6 and Department General Order M-7, CITATIONS FOR ADULT MISDEMEANORS, Part III, A-N.

25 B. When it is impractical to cite arrestees at or near the site of the demonstration because of a substantial risk
that this procedure would allow the unlawful activity to continue or because of specific geographic factors,

26 officers may cite and release arrestees from temporary processing stations or police facilities as near the site of
the arrest as possible. While detained during the citation and release process, arrestees shall have reasonable

27 access to toilet facilities and to appropriate medical attention.

C. No fingerprinting will be done as part of the citation and release process. Arrestees may be instructed to
28 appear for booking prior to or after arraignment.

OPD Training Bulletin III-G, CROWD CONTROL AND CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY (Rev. 28 Oct 05),

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 3 of 13

1

On May 17, 2013, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office also adopted a mass arrest

2 policy, which resolved plaintiffs’ injunctive relief requests with regard to Alameda County 3 jails and booking policies.2

4

The Parties engaged in preliminary discovery including written discovery, and

5 depositions of all named Plaintiffs and five Sheriff’s personnel. The Parties then agreed to

stay discovery and litigation and engage in settlement discussions. Between January 2014 6

and the present, the Parties have participated in four (4) all day and two (2) part day 7

settlement conferences and a number of telephonic conferences with Magistrate Judge Laurel 8

Beeler. In addition, there have been numerous communications between the Parties. As a 9

result of these extensive settlement negotiations, and with Judge Beeler’s assistance, the 10
Parties have now agreed on a complete settlement of this Litigation, the terms of which are 11
set forth below. 12
As part of the Settlement Process, the parties agreed to hold Plaintiffs’ motion for class 13
certification in abeyance. Said motion for class certification is filed as a companion motion 14
to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of this settlement. 15
II. The Settlement Agreement and Terms of Stipulation 16
A. Definitions 17
“Effective Date” shall be when the Judgment has become Final as defined below. 18
“Final” means the date on which the Court has entered the Judgment, following 19
submission of this Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Motion to the Court.
20 “Preliminary Approval Motion” means a motion filed with the Court requesting that the
21 Court consider and preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement.

22

23

24

25
26 2 ACSO Detentions & Correction Policy 11.65 states where 25 or more individuals are arrested for citable
offenses, while participating in “planned gatherings for the purpose of exercising rights protected by the First
27 Amendment”, these individuals with identification are not fingerprinted and booked. Instead, a warrant check
will be conducted “within thirty (30) minutes after the arrestee has been identified”, (11.65 (F)6) and when
28 groups of ten (10) arrestees have been cleared of warrants, “each will be issued a citation and notice to appear
and they and their property will be transferred to the release section of the facility and released.” (11.65 (F)7).

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 4 of 13

1 “Final Approval Motion” shall mean a motion filed with the Court requesting that the Court
2 consider and, if it finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable, finally approve the
3 Settlement Agreement.
4 “Final Approval Hearing” means the hearing to be held by the Court to consider and
5 determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation as contained in this Stipulation
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and whether the Judgment should be 6
entered. 7
“Judgment” means the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, to be 8
rendered by the court. 9
“Approved Claim” means a claim submitted no later than the Bar Date by a Class 10
Member other than a Representative Plaintiff which is approved by Plaintiffs’ counsel. 11
“Bar Date” means that date specified herein by which Claim Forms submitted by 12
Class Members must be delivered or postmarked in order to be considered for payment 13
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement described in this Stipulation. 14
“Class” means the class as defined in the Court’s March 23, 2012, Order granting 15
class certification: “The approximately 360 people who were arrested in the mass arrest 16
on Broadway between 23rd and 24th Streets in Oakland on January 28, 2012, and 17
who were never charged with any crime related to this arrest.” 18
“Class Members” means all persons within or encompassed by the definition of the Class. 19
“Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs” means STEVEN ANGELL, MILES AVERY, 20
MOLLY BATCHELDER, SRI LOUISE AKA LOUISE COLES, CICILY COOPER, 21
SHAREEF ELFIKI, THEODORE HEXTOR, and LINDSAY WEBER. 22
“Claimants” means Class Members who actually file claims pursuant to the procedures set 23
forth in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. 24
“Class Notice of Settlement Agreement” means the written notice, together with the 25
Publication Notice, which shall include the general terms of the Settlement Agreement, and
26 the date of the Final Approval Hearing. The Class Notice of Settlement shall conform to all
27 applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, any other
28 applicable law, and shall otherwise be in the manner and form approved by the Court.

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 5 of 13

1 “Claim Form” means that form which Class Members must submit in order to
2 qualify to participate in the settlement described in this Stipulation.
3 “The Parties” means the parties to this settlement agreement, who are the Plaintiffs, the Class,
4 the Oakland Defendants, and the County Defendants, defined above.
5 “Court” means the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
“Class Counsel” or “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means the class counsel named in Plaintiff’s 6
pending motion for class certification, Daniel Siegel and Yolanda Huang, or as the Court’s 7
Order for Class Certification designates. 8
“Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs” means Yolanda Huang. 9
“Class Settlement Fund” means the sum to be paid by the Defendants, totaling 10
$1,360,000, not subject to reversion, which will be funded and distributed as further 11
described in this Agreement. 12
B. Monetary Settlement 13
In consideration of the Release set forth in section II.G. of this Stipulation and the 14
entry of Judgment on the claims of all Class Members, the Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND 15
and COUNTY OF ALAMEDA will jointly pay the sum of $1,360,000 within fifteen (15) 16
days of the Effective Date of this settlement. Said payment shall include all attorneys’ fees 17
and costs of administering the class settlement and shall be made payable to Yolanda Huang, 18
Attorney Client Trust Account, to be distributed to the Class Representatives, Claimants, and 19
Class Counsel by that office as follows: 20
The eight Class Representatives shall each receive $9,000; 21
Class Counsel shall receive $350,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs, including all 22
costs associated with the administration of the Class Settlement Fund, transmittal and 23
publication of the Class Notice of Settlement Agreement and Claim Forms, review and 24
approval of Claim Forms, and payment of Approved Claims.
25 Those Claimants who have submitted Approved Claims shall each receive an equal
26 part of $1,360,000 after attorneys’ fees and costs and the Class Representatives’ distribution
27 have been deducted.
28

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 6 of 13

1

C. Non-Monetary Settlement

2 1. Sealing and Destruction of Arrest Records

3

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

4 relief as of the Effective Date:

5

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

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

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

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

b. The Parties stipulate that the relief shall be the equivalent of a determination of 9

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

procedural requirements of that statute shall be waived, including any time deadlines and 11
notice to the District Attorney. 12
c. The Court shall issue an Order in the names of all of the Plaintiffs and 13
Claimants who have submitted Approved Claims, stating that it is the determination of 14
the Court, pursuant to the stipulation of the Oakland Defendants (the arresting agency), that 15
the Plaintiffs and Claimants are factually innocent of the charges for which they were 16
arrested and that they are thereby exonerated. Thereafter, the arrest shall be deemed not 17
to have occurred and the person may answer accordingly any question relating to its 18
occurrence. (See Penal Code § 851.8, subd. (f).) 19
d. Destruction of records of arrest pursuant to the Court's order shall be
20 accomplished by permanent obliteration of all entries or notations upon the records

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

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

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

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

25 Code § 851.8, subd. (j).)

26

e. Plaintiffs arrested for felonies which were never charged will be determined to have

27 met the requirements of Penal Code § 299, and will be eligible to have their California State

28 DNA profile expunged and their DNA sample withdrawn.

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 7 of 13

1

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

2 of Justice, along with a list of Plaintiffs and of all Class Members who have filed timely

3 Claim Forms, and advise said agency of the fact that the records of their January 28, 2012

4 arrests have been rendered obsolete on the basis of a finding of factual innocence pursuant to

5 Penal Code § 851.8, which shall include expungement of all DNA profiles obtained and

withdrawal of all DNA samples. 6

D. Preliminary Approval 7

As soon as possible, and in no event more than ten (10) days after execution of this 8

Stipulation, the Parties shall jointly submit the Stipulation together with its Exhibits to 9

the Court and shall jointly apply for entry of a Preliminary Approval Order substantially 10

in the form set forth in Exhibit C, requesting, inter alia, the preliminary approval of the 11
Settlement set forth in this Stipulation, and approval/ dissemination of the Class Notice of the 12
Settlement and the proposed Claim Form. Plaintiffs shall also concurrently file a motion for 13
class certification, and defendants shall file a notice of non-opposition to said motion, 14
including Plaintiffs’ request that the Class Notice and right to be excluded from the class be 15
sent in combination with the notice of settlement. 16
As soon as possible after execution of this Stipulation, and in no event more than thirty 17
(30) days, after execution of this Stipulation, Defendant Alameda County shall formalize 18
approval of this settlement through a public Board Resolution. If Defendant City of Oakland 19
requires any additional steps to formalize approval of this settlement agreement, all such steps
20 shall be completed no less than thirty (30 days after execution of this Stipulation.

21 Within ten (10) days after Defendant Alameda County provides Plaintiffs’ counsel

22 with a copy of the County of Alameda’s public Board Resolution approving this settlement,

23 Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court a stipulation and proposed order dismissing, with

24 prejudice, Defendants GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT KETELES, CARLA KENNEDY,

25 DAVID BRADY, GREGORY L. MORGADO, and KERRY JACKSON. Within ten (10)

26 days after counsel for the City of Oakland verifies in writing that all necessary steps to

27 formalize approval of this settlement agreement have been completed, Plaintiffs shall submit

28 to the Court a stipulation and proposed order dismissing, with prejudice, Defendants

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 8 of 13

1 HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON YELDER, DARREN

2 ALLISON, STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL, and SEAN

3 WHENT.

4

In exchange for said dismissal, said individual Defendants hereby waive all rights to

5 recover costs or fees in connection with this lawsuit, as well as any tort claims they may have

against Plaintiffs or their counsel arising out of the prosecution of this action, and agree to the 6

Waiver and Covenant Not to Sue contained herein in paragraph H. 7

8
E. Class Notice of the Settlement and Claim Form 9
After Notice of Settlement Agreement, the Class Members shall have 60 days to opt 10
out or file a Claim Form, or to object to the Settlement Agreement following the procedure 11
set forth in the Notice. 12
F. Final Approval 13
A Final Approval Hearing shall be set no less than 45 days after the Court 14
issues its Preliminary Approval Order. The parties jointly request that, at the Final 15
Approval Hearing, the Court approve the settlement of the Litigation and enter Judgment 16
in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit D. 17
G. Releases and Bar Order 18
1. Upon the Effective Date, as defined above, the Parties shall be deemed to have, and shall 19
have, fully, finally, and forever waived, released, relinquished, discharged, and dismissed all 20
claims arising from the events alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 21
2. Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs and Class Members shall be forever barred and 22
enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting or continuing to prosecute any action or
23 other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal, or administrative forum,
24 asserting any claims arising from the events alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
25 3. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants shall be deemed to have, and by operation
26 of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged
27 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel from all claims (including Unknown Claims) arising out of,
28 relating to, or in connection with the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement, or

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 9 of 13

1 resolution of the Litigation or the determination regarding approval or disapproval of any 2 claim submitted.

3

4

H. Waiver and Covenant Not to Sue

5

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

have, fully, finally, and forever waived, released, and relinquished any claim for malicious 6

prosecution in connection with the Litigation. Each such Defendant covenants that he or she 7

will not institute any claim, lawsuit, arbitration, or proceeding of any nature against Plaintiffs, 8

any Class Member, or Plaintiffs' Counsel for any act or omission in connection with this 9

Litigation. 10

I. Conditions of Settlement, Effect of Disapproval 11
This Settlement is subject to the following conditions: 12
1. This Settlement is subject to the approval of the Court as provided in Federal Rules 13
of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e). 14
2. If the Stipulation is not approved by the Court, or otherwise fails to become 15
effective in accordance with its terms and provisions, the terms and provisions of this 16
Stipulation, with the exception of this section, shall have no further force and effect with 17
respect to the Parties and neither this Stipulation nor any submission by any party in 18
connection with the Motion(s) for Preliminary or Final Approval or Appeal therefrom, or 19
any related motions or proceedings, may be used in this Litigation or in any other
20 proceeding for any purpose, and any judgment or order entered by the Court in

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

22 J. Miscellaneous Provisions

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

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

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

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

27

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

28 disputes between them with respect to the Litigation. The settlement comprises claims, which

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 10 of 13

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

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

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

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

5

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

are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 6

4. The Stipulation and the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement 7

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

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

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

5. This Stipulation may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed 11
by or on behalf of all Parties. Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, is expressly 12
authorized by the Plaintiffs to take all appropriate action required or permitted to be taken by 13
the Class pursuant to the Stipulation to effectuate its terms, and also is expressly authorized to 14
enter into any modifications or amendments to the Stipulation on behalf of the Class which 15
she deems appropriate. 16
6. Each attorney or other person executing the Stipulation or any of its exhibits on 17
behalf of any Party hereto hereby warrants that such person has the full authority to do so. 18
7. The Stipulation shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors 19
and assigns of the Parties hereto.
20 8. This Settlement Agreement was drafted with substantial review and input by all

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

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

23 by its own terms, and not by referring to, or considering, the terms of any other settlement,

24 and not by any presumption against the drafter.

25 NOW, THEREFORE, the foregoing terms are hereby STIPULATED AND

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

27 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28

Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

Page 11 of 13

1 DATED: October 8, 2014 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DATED: October 8, 2014 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: October 8, 2014 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Angell, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. Settlement Agreement

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Professional Corporation
By: /S/__________________________ GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT KETELES, CARLA KENNEDY, DAVID BRADY, GREGORY L. MORGADO, and KERRY JACKSON
BARBARA J. PARKER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF OAKLAND
By: /S/___________________________ OTIS MCGEE
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, HOWARD JORDAN, JEFFREY ISRAEL, ERIC BRESHEARS, RON YELDER, DARREN ALLISON, STEVE TULL, EDWARD TRACEY, ANTHONY RACHAL, SEAN WHENT
YOLANDA HUANG, ESQ.
By: /s/ Yolanda Huang YOLANDA HUANG, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs STEVEN ANGELL, MILES AVERY, MOLLY BATCHELDER, SRI LOUISE also known as Louise Coles, CICILY COOPER, SHAREEF ELFIKI, THEODORE HEXTOR, LINDSAY WEBER
Page 12 of 13