Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page1 of 7

1 Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
2 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123
3 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084
4
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
5

6

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 MERCY AMBAT, et al.,
12

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15

16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Consolidated Case No. CV 07-03622 SI
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES (FRCP 42) Date: September 18, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m. Ctrm: 10, 19th Floor Judge: Hon. Susan Illston

17

Defendants.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 1 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page2 of 7

1

2

3

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES

4

To Defendant City and County of San Francisco and their attorneys of record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 18, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
5

matter may be called at the U. S, District Courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
6
California, in Department 10, on the 19th Floor, before the Honorable Susan Illston, Plaintiffs will and
7
hereby do move for Consolidation of the following cases:
8

9
1. Mercy Ambat et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, United States District court, Northern

10

district of California, Case No. C 07-03622 SI

11

2. Martha Ortega v. City and County of San Francisco, United States District Court, Northern

12

District of California, Case No. 09-02652 SI

13

14

This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42(a). The grounds for

15 the motion are that both cases are properly before the court and share common questions of law and fact. Furthermore, by consolidating these cases, Court efficiency will be increased and the duplication of
16
evidence and procedures will be avoided, as will the potential for inconsistent adjudications.
17

18
This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Lawrence
19
D. Murray, all previously filed documents and pleadings, and the argument of counsel at the hearing
20

21

22 Date: August 3, 2009
23 24 25 26

Respectfully submitted, Murray & Associates
/s/ Lawrence D. Murray___________ Lawrence D. Murray Attorney for Plaintiffs

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 2 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page3 of 7

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3

The complaint in Mercy Ambat et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, was filed in federal

4 court on July 13, 2007. (Mercy Ambat et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S.D.C. Case No. C

5 07-03622 SI) The complaint originally named thirty-five individual plaintiffs, consisting of both male

6 and female deputy sheriffs, whom all alleged discrimination as a result of the San Francisco Sheriff

7 Department’s policy of staffing ONLY female sheriffs in the female jail pods. Plaintiffs allege they

8 have suffered discrimination based on their gender in violation of the following statues and codes:

9 1) Gender Discrimination, Title VII; 2) Gender Discrimination, Fair Employment and Housing Act

10 ("FEHA"); 3) Gender Employment Restriction Title VII; 4) Gender Employment Restriction, FEHA; 5)

11 Retaliation for Protected Activity, Title VII; 6) Retaliation for Protected Activity, FEHA; 7) Failure To

12 Prevent Violation, FEHA; 8) California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq; 9) Peace Officer Bill of Rights,

13 Govt Code § 3309.5. (Declaration of Lawrence Murray (“Murray Dec”) at ¶ 4).

14

On May 9, 2008, other deputy sheriffs also sued based on the same facts, occurrences, and

15 questions of law. (Walker v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S.D.C. Case No. 08-2406 SI).

16 Similarly, the Walker plaintiffs were all San Francisco Sheriff Deputies, the defendant was the City and

17 County of San Francisco, and the allegations of discrimination arose from the same violations of the

18 statutes and code under which the Ambat plaintiffs had sued. In fact, the cases were so similar that

19 Plaintiff and Defense counsel entered into a stipulation for Order and Order Permitting Consolidation of

20 Actions and Permitting Filing of Plaintiff’s first Amended complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief

21 on September 29, 2008. (See Exhibit 1 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 6, Exhibit 7 at ¶ 12 ). The

22 consolidation of these two cases was ordered and approved with ‘good cause’ by Judge Susan Illston.

23 (See Exhibit 1 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 6).

24

On June 15, 2009, Martha Ortega, another deputy sheriff who suffered the same discrimination

25 as the previous plaintiffs, arising from the same nucleus of facts in violation of the same state and 26 federal statutes, also filed a complaint in Federal Court against the same defendant, the City and County 27 of San Francisco. (Martha Ortega v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S.D.C. Case No. 09-02652 28 MMC, See Exhibit 8 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 13, Murray Dec at ¶ 3,4,5). As plaintiffs in both

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 3 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page4 of 7

1
Ambat and Ortega are represented by the same counsel, a timely Notice of Related Case was properly
2
filed the following day on June 16, 2009. (See Exhibit 2 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 7, Murray Dec at ¶
3
2).
4
The Ortega case was assigned to the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, who signed an Order of

5 Referral on July 7, 2009, effectively sending the Ortega matter to the Honorable Susan Illston for

6 consideration of whether the Ortega case was related to Ambat. (See Exhibit 3 attached to Murray Dec

7 at ¶ 8) On July 15, 2009 the Honorable Susan Illston signed an order finding that Ortega and Ambat

8 were related and that both cases should be assigned to her courtroom. (See Exhibit 4 attached to Murray

9 Dec at ¶ 9). The Judge also notified all parties that the initial case management conference is scheduled

10 for Friday, October 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. (See Exhibit 5 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 10).

11

As all plaintiffs in both the Ortega and Ambat cases want to consolidate their claims, Plaintiffs’

12 counsel has made several attempts to avoid judicial intervention by requesting Defendant enter a

13 stipulation to consolidate the cases. (See Exhibit 6 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 11). Despite these

14 attempts, defendant refuses to do so. (Id.) Even though the consolidation of the cases would save

15 judicial time and resources, prevent duplicative evidence and procedures, and would avoid the potential

16 for inconsistent adjudications, Defendant staunchly refuses to stipulate to the consolidation. As such,

17 Plaintiffs are forced to bring the present motion seeking consolidation of the cases.

18

ARGUMENT

19

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to consolidate actions pending

20 before it if those actions involve a “common question of law or fact.” The standard is an expansive one,

21 the determination of which rests solely in the sound discretion of the trial court. (Paxonet Communs.,

22 Inc. v. Transwitch Corp., 303 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1028-1029, N.D. Cal.2003; United States E.P.A. v. city 23 of Green Forest, Ark. 8th cir. 1990) 921 F2d 1394, 1402). The only requirement a trial court must find in

24 order to consolidate is whether there are common question of law or fact shared by the cases to be 25 consolidated. (E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp. (8th Cir. 1998) 135 F3d. 543, 551).

26

In reaching its decision to consolidate cases, a trial court must only find a “common question of

27 law or fact,” but it may also consider several factors that would affect the litigation including the burden

28 on parties, witnesses, judicial resources, the risk of inconsistent adjudications, the potential for prejudice,

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 4 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page5 of 7

1
and the risk of delaying trial. (Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (2nd Cir. 1990) 899 F2d 1281, 1285, Cantrell
2
v. GAF Corp. (6th Cir. 1993) 999 F2d 1007, 1011; Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co. (2nd Cir. 1993)
3
995 F2d 346, 350; Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (5th Cir. 1989) 886 F2d 758, 762). Consolidation has
4
been found to be appropriate in virtually every kind of action that can be brought in federal court, and is

5 unquestionably appropriate in this instance. (See, e.g., State of Ohio ex rel. Montgomery v. Louis Trauth

6 Dairy, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 500, 503 (S.D. Ohio 1995).

7

The instant actions of Ortega and Ambat have both been filed in United States District Court,

8 Northern District of California pursuant to 28 USC 1331, and are therefore properly “before the court.”

9 The two case also involve multiple “common questions of law and fact”, and as such, satisfy the only

10 requirement for consolidation under Rule 42(a).

11

The common questions of law and fact include the following:

12

13

(i) All the named female deputy plaintiffs, including Martha Ortega, allege they were treated less

14

favorably because of their gender, female.

15

16

(ii) The allegations of discrimination all arise from the same facts: On or about October 4, 2006,

17

all females inmates were collected from the sections of the San Francisco County Jail system

18

and then moved and reassigned to all inclusive sections unattainable by other sections,

19

(known as “pods”) in the San Francisco County Jail, specifically County Jail # 8, (“CJ #8”).

20

21

(iii) By written directive of October 18, 2006, from Chief Arata to all of the jails, those female

22

deputies previously assigned to other jails, specifically County Jail 1 and 2, were reassigned

23

to CJ#8 and only women were then allowed to work in the woman pods of CJ #8.

24

25

(iv) On multiple occasions, various Sheriff Deputies sent letters and grievances directed to the

26

supervisors in charge, notifying them of the discriminatory assignment of only female

27

deputies to the female pods of CJ#8.

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 5 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page6 of 7

1
(v) In particular, the discrimination experienced by all female deputies as a result of the October
2
18, 2007 directive includes: increased occurrences of violence, higher levels of stress, heavier

3
workloads due to overcrowding and increased administrative demands; greater danger of

4
physical harm from ‘unclassified’ violent female inmates kept in the general population,

5

insufficient lighting in the female pod areas, and; the inability to obtain training and

6

experience in other departments and positions within the jail system thereby decreasing their

7

chances of promotion. This discrimination is suffered by all the named female deputy

8

plaintiffs, including Martha Ortega, over and above the harm encountered by the male

9

Sheriff’s Deputies.

10

11

(vi) Furthermore, the violated statutes and codes giving rise to the claims of gender

12

discrimination and restrictions in both Ortega and Ambat include: 1) Gender Discrimination,

13

Title VII; 2) Gender Discrimination, Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); 3)

14

Gender Employment Restriction Title VII; 4) Gender Employment Restriction, FEHA; 5)

15

Retaliation for Protected Activity, Title VII; 6) Retaliation for Protected Activity, FEHA; 7)

16

Failure To Prevent Violation of FEHA; 8) California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq; 9) Peace

17

Officer Bill of Rights (Govt Code § 3309.5).

18

19

(vii) The Plaintiffs in both Ortega and Ambat are represented by the same legal counsel.

20

21

(viii) Lastly, the named defendant in both Ortega and Ambat is the City and County of San

22

Francisco.

23

24

Indeed, the Ambat and Ortega actions are so nearly identical that on July 15, 2009, the Honorable

25 Judge Susan Illston ruled that the cases were related, and had both cases assigned to her Courtroom.

26 (See Exhibit 4 attached to Murray Dec at ¶ 9). In fact, the near identity of the complaints in these two

27 actions provides ample basis for consolidation. The benefits of consolidating these two cases would

28 clearly serve the interests of justice: increases judicial efficiency, avoids duplicative evidence,

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 6 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page7 of 7

1
procedures, and inconsistent adjudications, precludes waste, and alleviates potential burdens to the court
2
and all parties involved.
3
CONCLUSION
4
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs in both the Ortega and Ambat cases respectfully request that this
5 court consolidate the actions.
6

7 DATED: August 3, 2009
8 9 10

/s/Lawrence C. Murray LAWRENCE D. MURRAY Attorney for Plaintiffs

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 7 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Consolidation of Cases

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page1 of 33

1 Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 077536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
2 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123
3 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084
4
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
Northern District of California
8

9 MERCY AMBAT, ZAINABU ANDERSON, JOHN No. Case No. C-07-3622 SI

10 ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, SHARON CASTILLO, (including No: C-08-2406 SI & C-09-2652 SI) JOANNA CROTTY, TEQUISHA CURLEY, ALISA

11 DAVIS-ZEHNER, MARLA DENZER, PATTI

FLYNN, TERESA FOX, JON GRAY, TORI

THIRD AMENDED & CONSOLIDATED

12 JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN, MICHAEL JONES, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

13 RICHARD LEE, SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

.

SUKHWANT MANN, GLORIA MARTIN,

1) Gender Discrimination, Title VII

14 ARTURO MEDRANO, MARC NUTI, KEVIN

2) Gender Discrimination, FEHA

O’SHEA, ANTHONY PEPPERS, VINCENT 15 QUOCK, WENDY RODGERS-WELLS, LANA

3) Gender Employment Restriction Title VII 4) Gender Employment Restriction, FEHA

16 SLOCUM, ERNEST SMITH, TONYETTE SMITH- 5) Retaliation for Protected Activity, Title VII

AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN,

6) Retaliation for Protected Activity, FEHA

17 KENNETH TAN, ANJIE VERSHER, BONNIE

7) Failure To Prevent Violation of FEHA

WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, ROLAND

8) California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq

18 ZANIE, MICHAEL ZEHNER, PAMELA WALKER, 9) Peace Officer Bill of Rights (Govt § 3309.5)

19 GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO, FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA

20 KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, JEREMY

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEJUSUS and MARTHA ORTEGA
21

22

Plaintiffs,

vs.

23

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 24 ********,***********

25
Defendant.
26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 1
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page2 of 33

1

Plaintiffs ******, ZAINABU ANDERSON, JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, SHARON

2 CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY, **********, ************, MARLA DENZER, PATTI FLYNN,

3 TERESA FOX, JON GRAY, TORI JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN, MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD LEE,
SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON, SUKHWANT MANN, GLORIA MARTIN, ARTURO MEDRANO,
4
******, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, WENDY RODGERS-WELLS,
5
******, *******, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, ***********,
6
ANJIE VERSHER, BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, ROLAND ZANIE, *********,
7
PAMELA WALKER, GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO, FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON,
8 OLGA KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, ********** and MARTHA ORTEGA and complain of

9 Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and allege:

10
11
A.
12

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Jurisdiction and Venue

13 1. Jurisdiction of matters claimed herein is properly before the United States District Court,
Northern District of California pursuant to 28 USC 1331. Jurisdiction of all California claims is proper
14
pursuant to this court’s Supplemental Jurisdiction, specifically, 28 USC 1367(a).
15
2. Venue of all matters claimed herein is properly before the United States District Court for the
16
Northern District of California as each of the acts alleged occurred within this district.
17
3. Pursuant to United States District Court, Northern District of California, Local Rule 3-2(d), this
18 action is being commenced in San Francisco, California, because the facts and circumstances of this

19 action arose in San Francisco County, California.

20 3.1 Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, through their attorneys, and order of this court, all

21 claims in the Ambat matter, all claims in the Walker matter (previously filed initially as United States

22 District Court, Northern District of California, and Number No. 3:CV-08-2406-PJH), and all claims of

23 plaintiffs entering after Ambat and Walker were originally filed, are consolidated into this, the Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief.
24

25
B.
26
4.

Identity of Plaintiff Plaintiffs *******, ZAINABU ANDERSON, JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, SHARON

27
CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY, **********, ************, MARLA DENZER, PATTI FLYNN,

28 TERESA FOX, JON GRAY, TORI JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN, MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD LEE,

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 2
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page3 of 33
1 SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON, SUKHWANT MANN, GLORIA MARTIN, ARTURO MEDRANO,
2 ******, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, WENDY RODGERS-WELLS,
3 *******, ********, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, ********, ANJIE VERSHER, BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, ROLAND ZANIE, ******,
4
PAMELA WALKER, GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO, FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON,
5
OLGA KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, ****** and MARTHA ORTEGA are Citizens of the
6
United States and residents of the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Specifically, the City and County
7
of San Francisco and the State of California. At all times relevant plaintiffs were employees of 8 Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. 9 5. At all times relevant plaintiffs were employed in the City of San Francisco, County of San
10 Francisco, State of California, and were discriminated against in that location.
11 C. Identity of Defendant
12 6. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is a public entity operating and doing
13 business in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, was and is an employer within the definition of
14
employer as defined for the purposes of discrimination under Title VII and the Fair Employment and
15
Housing Act Government Code §§12900, et seq., (herein referred to as “FEHA”) in that said defendant
16
employed more than twenty thousand employees, more than the minimum number of persons in the
17
State of California to be classified as an employer under Title VII and FEHA. 18 7. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, was and is an 19 employer within the definition of employer as defined for the purposes of discrimination under the Civil
20 Rights Act of 1964, (42 USC 2000e) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government
21 Code §§12900, et seq., (herein referred to as “FEHA”) in that said defendant employed more than
22 fifteen employees, more than the minimum number of persons in the State of California to be classified
23 as an employer under Title VII and FEHA. 8. That the conditions of employment occurred to the plaintiffs listed herein. As said complaint has
24
been raised, defendant has chosen to instruct the victims of said discrimination, including the plaintiffs
25
here, to move to another job or get another job rather than carry out there statutory duty to eliminate all
26
forms of illegal discrimination. The changing of positions of these plaintiffs, to the extent that such
27
change has occurred, has not reduced the incidents of discrimination but rather, has necessarily caused 28 the harm of such discrimination to be felt by additional and new victims of such discriminatory conduct.
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 3
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page4 of 33

1 9. At all times relevant, Defendant City and County of San Francisco was prohibited from using

2 gender as a basis for discrimination in the assignment of work in the jail by the laws of the State of

3 California in California Penal Code Section 4021(b) which states: “It shall be unlawful for any … jailer

… to search the person of any prisoner of the opposite sex, except in the company of an employee of the
4

same sex as the prisoner. Except as provided herein, the provisions of this subdivision shall not be
5
applied to discriminate against any employee by prohibiting appointment or work assignment of the
6
basis of the sex of the employee.”
7
D. History Giving Rise To Suit

8

(i) Discrimination In Employment Against Female Deputies By Defendant

9 10. ********, ZAINABU ANDERSON, SHARON CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY,

10 ************, ***********, MARLA DENZER, PATTI FLYNN, TERESA FOX, TORI JACKSON,

11 LISA JANSSEN, SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON, GLORIA MARTIN, WENDY RODGERS-WELLS,

12 ********, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, ANJIE VERSHER,

13 BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, PAMELA WALKER, GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO,
FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS and
14
MARTHA ORTEGA were treated less favorably because of their gender, female.
15
11. About October 4, 2006, all females inmates were collected from the sections of the San
16
Francisco County Jail system and then moved and reassigned to all inclusive sections unattainable by
17
other sections, (known as “pods”) in the San Francisco County Jail, specifically County Jail # 8, (“CJ
18 #8”).

19 12. Assignment of deputies in CJ #8 was realigned so that the female pods in CJ#8 housed only

20 female prisoners which were staffed by only female deputies. On multiple occasions, letters and

21 grievances were directed to the supervisors in charge, including Sheriff Hennessey, notifying them of

22 the discriminatory assignment of only female deputies to the female pods of CJ#8 (see below). The

23 Sheriff’s Department’s past practice had been that the primary deputy be female while the backup can
be male. This practice was inconsistent with and in excess of the authorization for gender consideration
24
found in the California Penal Code Section 4021 which states that a female deputy must be available and
25
accessible for female inmates at all times, not that only female deputies can be assigned to female pods.
26
Penal Code Section 4021 specifically prohibits gender based discriminatory work assignments in said
27
female pods and elsewhere in the jail system.
28 13. Notably, in most, if not all federally operated and California state prisons, men and women have

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 4
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page5 of 33
1 consistently staffed both the male and female pods and jail facilities without regard to gender of the staff
2 or of the prisoner. There is no practice in the federal and California state prison and jail system that
3 excludes males from working in jails and prisons which house women. 14. However, in the San Francisco County Jail system, effective October 4, 2006, the City and
4
County of San Francisco, by and through the Sheriff’s Department, instituted a new policy of
5
consolidating and housing all female inmates in one area, County Jail # 8, (“CJ #8”), more particularly
6
in three sections of the jail, commonly referred to as “pods,” and using only female deputies to staff
7
these three female pods. 8 15. By written directive of October 18, 2007, Chief Arata to all of the jails, those female deputies 9 previously assigned to other jails, specifically County Jail 1 and 2, were reassigned to CJ#8 and only
10 women were then allowed to work in the woman pods of CJ #8.
11 16. The assignment of female deputies, including the female plaintiff employees, causes harm to
12 such female employees over and above the harm encountered by male deputies. Female deputies
13 working female only pods are constantly and continually put at a great risk of harm above and beyond that experienced by male deputies who do not work the female side of the jail.
14
17. In the San Francisco jails and elsewhere, female inmates are more difficult to supervise than
15
male inmates. Female inmates require more attention, are more disruptive and tend to be more violent
16
towards each other and these deputies, and are allowed access to more dangerous items as compared to
17
male inmates. 18 18. Female deputies assigned to and supervising female inmate pods are exposed to increased risk of 19 physical harm since they work alone for periods of time (lunch, dinner, breaks, midnight shift) which
20 increases the risk of harm to these female deputies. Male and female deputies supervising male inmates
21 generally have at least two deputies per male inmate pod. When dealing with male prisoners in male
22 pods, during meal breaks a supervisor will fill in to maintain the two deputy minimum.
23 19. The female pods are generally designated for specific numbers of prisoners per pod. However, due to overcrowding and the lack of space and bedding, the female pods of CJ#8 are often overcrowded
24
beyond their capacity. For example, in May, June and July 2007, there were many instances of
25
overcrowding by as much as 20 inmates in excess of the 86 capacity for the female pod which far
26
exceeded the available bed space. The male pods do not suffer from excessive numbers of inmates as
27
they are generally shipped to other jails when they arrive and no bed space is available. This condition, 28 and the limited number of female deputies, increases the risk of harm, the risk that one or two female
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 5
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page6 of 33
1 deputies would be hurt or killed in the situation, and increases the stress on female deputies beyond
2 those suffered by male deputies. Inmates have a history of attacking other inmates and harming the
3 inmates, such as attacks with hot scalding water causing second degree burns, where, in this setting there is overcrowding and a lack of female deputies to supervise the situation safely.
4
20. Further, overcrowding is exacerbated by a policy in which inmates confined by reason of Parole
5
Revocation and pending Parole Hearings are given priority and space in CJ#8. San Francisco County
6
Jails receive funds from the Department of Corrections, State of California, for housing Parolees
7
awaiting hearings. San Francisco County female inmates are forced to sleep on the floor having their 8 bed reassigned to the Parole inmate. Female deputies are thus forced to quell the fights and hostility 9 created by this situation which is rarely encountered in the male only pods.
10 21. In the female pods, lights are not kept on 24 hours a day as is the case with most male pods (e.g.
11 F Pod). This increases the chance of danger to the sole female deputy watching over the inmates as she
12 cannot see where potential conflicts may arise, and is unequipped to handle any conflicts if they arise
13 due to a lack of personnel, especially when compared to her counterpart working the male pods. 22. Due to the policy of female only deputies in female pods, female deputies are often assigned a
14
transfer and detailed to these female pods without training and without understanding of the security
15
procedures for the operation of their position. Assignment without training places all of the employees,
16
inmates and deputies at greater risk of injury and places the security of the jail at higher risk.
17
23. The female population at CJ#8 is more dangerous than the population in the all male sections. 18 Female pods have all of the female population, including those who are unusually violent and 19 dangerous, randomly placed in the pod without regard to classification for security purposes, including
20 their history and level of danger. Female pods have those who are emotionally distressed and dangers to
21 themselves mixed in with normal prisoners. Female pods have those who are classified as, and have an
22 extensive history of violence, mixed in with the general female population, (e.g. MR3’s and MR4’s).
23 The male pods do not have such mixture of the various levels of dangerous prisoners. The male pods have the dangerous prisoners segregated out and placed in special cells with extra deputies assigned to
24
handle those dangerous male prisoners.
25
24. The female pods for female prisoners have no equipment or facilities to safely handle those who
26
are dangerous, while male cells do have special means for handling dangerous prisoners. Male pods
27
have special doors and equipment to have the prisoner in leg and body chains before exiting the cell to 28 preclude an attack on the deputy. No such equipment or facilities is in place to handle the female
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 6
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page7 of 33

1 prisoners, thus allowing more frequent violent attacks against the female deputies in the female pods.

2 25. Female deputies who are assigned to these female pods have to perform substantial

3 administrative work, such as passing out medication, delivery of food and replacement clothing, which
takes there attention off of the other members of the pods and increases the level of safety risk for the
4
deputy. The male cells rarely have less than two deputies working and adjust for such a shift in the
5
deputy staffing.
6
26. Female deputies who are assigned to these female pods fail to get training in many other security
7
positions and fail to get adequate use of the facility to operate it in a safe manner. In order to give the
8 appearance of complying with internal orders and California jail management standards, management,

9 including defendant here, have knowingly and intentionally created false and misleading documentation

10 to demonstrate that certain female deputies assigned to female pods have been trained and certified as

11 competent to work other jail assignments when no such training and no such certification has occurred.

12 27. Female deputies who are assigned to these female pods fail to have the opportunity to function

13 in other positions, thus limiting their ability to compete for promotion when compared to others who
work in and function in numerous other positions.
14
28. Male deputies assigned to CJ #8 and similar jails enjoy a variety of assignments which relieve
15
and reduce fatigue and stress. Female deputies who are assigned to these female pods do not enjoy a
16
variety of assignments, have increased fatigue from this singular assignment, and have exacerbation of
17
this condition by repeatedly being forced to work additional shifts in these pods while in a fatigued
18 state, thereby additionally increasing their own risk of physical harm from female inmates.

19 29. Female deputies who are assigned to these female pods have their choice of other benefits of

20 employment such as shift, regular days off (RDOs) and vacation schedule limited because their seniority

21 is no longer the determining factor for receiving such benefits when compared to their male

22 counterparts.

23

(ii) Discrimination In Employment Against Male Deputies By Defendant

30. JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, JON GRAY, MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD LEE,
24
SUKHWANT MANN, ARTURO MEDRANO, ******, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY PEPPERS,
25
VINCENT QUOCK, ******, *******,and ROLAND ZANIE, ******, ****** have been treated less
26
favorably because of gender, male.

27
31. Since the segregation and movement of all the female inmates into one section on or about

28 October 4, 2006, the Department also implemented a shift bidding process for RDOs and shift

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 7
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page8 of 33
1 assignment that is segregated by gender. Instead of having RDOs and shift assignment based on
2 seniority, as has been the practice for years and is required under the collective bargaining agreement, it
3 has been based on gender first since October 2006. This has resulted in some of the more senior male deputies having to take less favorable RDOs and shift assignments than would be the case if it were
4
based on seniority. When, in 1994-5, defendant attempted such gender based discrimination, complaints
5
were raised and the department relented, admitting it was unlawful gender based discrimination.
6
32. When it is necessary to recruit deputies for overtime in the female pods of CJ #8, it is posted in
7
writing by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department as overtime available to “female only,” effectively 8 eliminating and discouraging any male deputies from signing up for overtime in CJ #8. On rare 9 occasions when only a male deputy can be found to fill the shift, he is then placed in overtime status and
10 traded to another facility for a female who then is assigned to work CJ #8. This puts both deputies at
11 increased risk of physical harm in a facility with which he/she is not familiar and an increased risk of
12 discipline for having made erroneous decisions in the booking, handling and release of prisoners in their
13 custody. 33. By the policy since October 2006, male deputies are discriminated against based on their gender
14
in their ability to work overtime and earn the wages from those hours. Overtime signups are supposed
15
to be based on seniority, with more senior deputies getting preference for available overtime. However,
16
due to the practice of staffing only female deputies in the female pods of CJ#8, less senior female
17
deputies are given opportunity for overtime that would otherwise be given to more senior male deputies. 18 Thus, male deputies who are seeking overtime work, who are ready, willing and able to work, have been 19 deprived work and therefore deprived income, as a result of this policy of having only female deputies
20 assigned to work the female only pods of the San Francisco County Jail.
21 34. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department has a rule, policy and procedure which precludes and/or
22 makes it very difficult for those who complain of gender based discrimination to do so without violating
23 rules, being brought up on disciplinary charges and otherwise being harmed for complaining of illegal forms of discrimination, including gender based discrimination in employment.
24
(iii) Retaliation against Lisa Janssen
25
35. Plaintiff Deputy Lisa Janssen was retaliated against due to complaining of gender discrimination
26
in the San Francisco County Jails. Plaintiff Deputy Janssen complained about gender based assignments
27
and as a result was classified as insubordinate and sustained a written punishment. On or about January 28 9, 2007, Deputy Janssen was detailed from her normal assignment to the female pods in CJ #8 by her
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 8
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page9 of 33
1 watch commander for her normal watch. Plaintiff Deputy Janssen contacted and complained of such an
2 assignment as gender based discrimination to Lieutenant Stephen Tilton. Within days the complaint of
3 gender discrimination was acknowledged and made by Tilton the basis for an adverse employment action by Tilton against Plaintiff Deputy Janssen. As a result, Plaintiff Deputy Janssen was then called
4
into a Chief’s investigation for a Chief’s reprimand to which Plaintiff Deputy Janssen provided a written
5
response. During the hearing before Chief Thomas Arata, Plaintiff Deputy Janssen again complained
6
that the policy was illegal and an act of gender based discrimination. During the hearing Arata and
7
Tilton stated that Plaintiff Deputy Janssen, and all deputies, are not allowed to question or complain 8 about orders even if the orders are discriminatory. 9 36. Plaintiff Deputy Janssen did as instructed on the day in question and worked without incident in
10 the female pod at CJ #8. Plaintiff Deputy Janssen was then brought up on charges of (a) conduct
11 towards superior officers and peers, (b) criticism of orders, (c) impermissible behavior, and (d)
12 unacceptable job performance, all for having complained to her supervisor that such assignment to CJ
13 #8 during her normal work shift at CJ#1, which was based on her gender, female, was illegal discrimination by the Sheriff’s Department.
14
37. Because of the complaint of discrimination, Arata and Tilton used that opportunity as the basis
15
for imposition of a Chief’s Reprimand, a form of written discipline which follows her throughout her
16
employment career, which will hamper this deputy from advancing to other and higher positions of
17
authority in the department. This deputy has a history of annual reviews where she has been rated as 18 “exceeds expectations.” This is the first time that Plaintiff Deputy Janssen has had any written 19 disciplinary action against her.
20 38. In a formal meeting with Chief Thomas Arata, during the course of an investigation by the
21 managers of the Sheriff’s Department, Lieutenant Stephen Tilton indicated that plaintiff complained of
22 gender discrimination in assignment of wages, hours and working conditions and did so in a loud and
23 unruly manner. He did so in an effort to cause Plaintiff Deputy Janssen to sustain a potential future discipline and potential loss of employment for having complained of illegal gender discrimination.
24
This deputy denied using a loud and boisterous manner and admitted that her complaint was based on
25
illegal gender discrimination in assignment of work.
26
39. In order to perpetuate the illegal policy of discrimination, further damage and harm plaintiff, and
27
to cause a chilling effect upon Janssen and any other deputy who might complain of discrimination, 28 Roderick Wallace, employed deceit and fraud in that he stated that he heard Janssen talk in a loud voice,
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 9
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page10 of 33

1 thus act insubordinately, when in fact he was not in a position to have heard anything. Wallace stated

2 that he heard Plaintiff Deputy Janssen in that she was emotional and irrational and that he could hear her

3 voice over the phone in the conversation with Lieutenant Tilton though he was not in a position to have
heard any of the conversation. The statements of Roderick Wallace were knowingly false, malicious
4
and intended to perpetuate the ongoing acts of discrimination and preclude anyone, including Plaintiff
5
Jansen, from presenting or formulating complaints of gender discrimination in employment, all
6
consistent with the policy, practice and procedure of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.
7
40. As a result of having the charges brought and these statements made, Plaintiff Deputy Janssen
8 requested that an investigation include questioning of others who were present on her side of the phone

9 call as well as Tilton’s side of the phone call. Plaintiff Janssen indicated that there were witnesses who

10 would be willing to speak of their observations that no such hostile, emotional or irrational comments

11 were made. Rather than carry out the function of the investigation, including the mandatory duty to take

12 all reasonable steps to end discrimination, Thomas Arata stated he had no interest in calling others or

13 doing any further investigation and that if the deputy wanted to get other witnesses she should but that
he had heard all that he needed to hear.
14
41. In an effort to prevent any future complaints of discrimination, the disciplinary order issued by
15
Thomas Arata stated that Plaintiff Deputy Janssen would be placed on progressive discipline leading to
16
termination if she was to again complain of orders issued to her, including complaining of gender based
17
discrimination in assignment of employment duties in the San Francisco County Jail System.
18 42. On or about April 5, 2007, Plaintiff Deputy Janssen, through her attorneys, filed a California

19 Government Code Claim entitled “Claim for Monetary Damages Per Section 910, et seq, Government

20 Code,” with the City and County of San Francisco naming Lt. Stephen Tilton, Capt. Thomas Arata, and

21 Sgt. R. Wallace. On or about April 23, 2007, the City and County of San Francisco rejected said claim

22 and thereafter started a 6 month statute of limitations for bringing a claim.

23 43. On or about April 20, 2007, Plaintiff Deputy Janssen, through her attorneys, requested charges

by the State of California, Department of Labor, Labor & Workforce Development Agency, against City
24
and County of San Francisco, Sheriff’s Office, Lt. Stephen Tilton, Capt. Thomas Arata, and Sgt. R.
25
Wallace pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code Section 2699 and 2699.3 More than 33 days have
26
expired since the request for such charges was made, hence Plaintiff Janssen has exercised all of her

27
administrative prerequisite to bringing claims under 1102.5 of the California Labor Code.

28

(iv) Retaliation against Mattie Spires-Morgan

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 10
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page11 of 33
1 44. Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was retaliated against due to complaining of harm done to her
2 and other female deputies due to gender discrimination in the San Francisco County Jails by the female
3 deputy only policy for female pods. She suffered unlawful and baseless charges for events that did not occur in an effort to retaliate for having complained of discrimination and in an effort to preclude and
4
cause a chilling effect on future claims of gender based discrimination.
5
45. For months since the assignment of female only deputies into the female only pods at CJ #8,
6
Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan made verbal complaints that women were more at risk for working these
7
female only pods. She verbally complained that safety of female deputies was at higher risk than for 8 males outside the female only pod. 9 46. At the end of January 2007, and again in the beginning of February 2007, while at “muster” (a
10 mandatory all deputy meeting lead by Sheriff’s Department managers at the beginning of the shift to
11 make assignments and discuss the condition of the jail), when asked if anyone had anything to say,
12 Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan complained to the manager, Lt. John Minor, about the policy for female
13 only deputies in the female pods. She complained that the method and means of causing women only to work these pods, as described here, is unsafe for the deputies. At two musters she complained that the
14
method of staffing these pods with only women was unsafe and that she or another deputy would likely
15
get hurt from the policy. Lt. Minor laughed at the complaint stating that nothing was going to happen
16
unless one of them (one of the female deputies) got hurt and then maybe something would be done.
17
47. As a direct result of the heightened level of safety concerns and because her supervisors would 18 do nothing more than laugh at her complaints of gender based discrimination in front of approximately 19 twelve (12) other deputies, on February 25, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan drafted a written
20 grievance regarding outstanding safety issues in the female pod of CJ #8 due to the gender based
21 discriminatory policy for assignment of female deputies to the female pods, which included short
22 staffing due to the refusal to place available men in the female pots, and lighting differences in the
23 female pods creating an even greater level of danger in the work place. Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan also complained in writing of the safety issues created by having only one deputy for the entire pod
24
where that deputy is responsible for providing food and providing the medications, which left no one
25
attentive to the remainder of the pod and the security needs for the remainder of the pod.
26
48. Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan placed the grievance in Captain Johna Pecot’s inbox. Contrary to
27
her statutory duty to take all reasonable actions to end discrimination under California Government 28 Code Section 12940 (k), Pecot refused to take any action on the complaint of discrimination and
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 11
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page12 of 33
1 rejected it without any investigation or discussion with Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan.
2 49. As a result of having made a written complaint of gender based discrimination to Pecot, within
3 300 days of filing the EEOC charges in this matter on March 28, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was subject to acts of retribution and retaliation by the management staff consisting of Capt. Johna
4
Pecot, Lt. John Minor and Sgt. Ed Ruppenstein.
5
50. On February 28, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was summoned to meet with her
6
supervisors, Lt. Minor and Sgt. Ruppenstein. At this meeting Minor and Ruppenstein acknowledged the
7
discriminatory nature of the policy but refused to alter the female deputy only policy in the female pods 8 at CJ #8. 9 51. Immediately after making the grievance, and as a result of having filed the grievance, an internal
10 affairs action was begun against Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan, which, upon information and belief was
11 controlled, authorized and approved by Capt. Johna Pecot, Lt. Minor and Sgt. Ruppenstein.
12 52. Contrary to established protocol, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was not notified that she was
13 the subject of an investigation at the inception of the investigation. Plaintiff was actually informed by the jail inmates that her supervisors were actively soliciting complaints of misconduct from these
14
inmates against Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan. Contrary to established protocol, after her supervisors
15
began soliciting complaints, plaintiff was not told that she was being investigated for misconduct.
16
Plaintiff was not informed by a supervisor that they were conducting an investigation, the nature of the
17
investigation or the basis for the investigation. 18 53. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Sheriff’s Department and the Union requires a 19 deputy must be informed of any such investigation. Additionally, the procedure employed by said
20 defendant was a violation of this deputy’s rights under the California Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of
21 Rights.
22 54. On March 8, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was approached by Lt. Minor and she was
23 then ordered to stay over and work an additional eight (8) hours involuntary overtime after finishing her shift. When no deputy had been sent to relieve her following this 16 hour work period, Plaintiff Mattie
24
Spires-Morgan notified Sgt. Wallace that she needed to be relieved since she had worked at least 16
25
hours. After prodding by plaintiff, Sgt. Wallace relieved her at 3:15 p.m. Plaintiff Mattie Spires-
26
Morgan complained to Sgt. Wallace that she thought it was intentional that no relief had been sent until
27
she complained. Sgt. Wallace just laughed at her. The Sheriff’s Department Policy and the MOU 28 states that no deputy can work more than 16 hours unless there is a natural disaster.
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 12
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page13 of 33
1 55. On March 9, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan finally received the inmate grievances from
2 Lt. Minor and Sgt. Ruppenstein which they had previously solicited and which were submitted to them
3 on February 23rd. It is common practice for supervisors to find out from the deputy whether the allegations are true and if there were any other witnesses. However, in this case, they made no inquiry,
4
sought no information, and slid the grievances across the table. Both told her to respond to the
5
grievances. This was the first time she was shown grievances (15 days after they had been filed).
6
56. On March 23, 2007, Dave Gossman (the union representative for Plaintiff Mattie Spires-
7
Morgan) addressed a letter to Sheriff Hennessey in an attempt to find a remedy for the original 8 grievance filed by Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan. 9 57. On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was again ordered to work an additional
10 shift of 8 hours of involuntary overtime despite the fact that she was not next on the draft list. Plaintiff
11 Mattie Spires-Morgan had other deputies ahead of her on the draft list. There was no reason for
12 deviating from the draft list. It is utilized specifically so that deputies are drafted equally and in the
13 proper order. However, the rules relating to rotation of forced overtime were overlooked in order to cause inconvenience to and continue to inflict harm against Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan; to
14
intimidate her regarding the grievance drafted on February 25th; and to intimidate her from filing future
15
grievances which were based on gender discrimination.
16
58. On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan was informed she was under investigation for
17
charges that she permitted a fight in the female pod and other things. Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan 18 was forced to and did undergo an interview in association with these charges. Ultimately, these charges 19 were dismissed since there was never a fight. At other times, plaintiff has been advised by various
20 inmates that their supervisor approached the inmates and ask that they bring charges against plaintiff.
21 All of such conduct, including such charges, have the effect of causing a chilling the exercise of her
22 rights to complain of gender based discrimination.
23 59. These charges were made in retaliation after she complained of a dangerous and discriminatory work environment and after she consulted with a lawyer to protect her interests.
24
60. On or about April 5, 2007, Plaintiff Deputy Spires-Morgan, through her attorneys, filed a
25
California Government Code Claim entitled “Claim for Monetary Damages Per Section 910, et seq,
26
Government Code,” with the City and County of San Francisco naming Lt. Stephen Tilton, Capt.
27
Thomas Arata, and Sgt. R. Wallace. On or about April 23, 2007, the City and County of San Francisco 28 rejected said claim and thereafter started a 6 month statute of limitations for bringing a claim.
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 13
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page14 of 33
1 61. On or about April 20, 2007, Plaintiff Deputy Spires-Morgan, through her attorneys, requested
2 charges by the State of California, Department of Labor, Labor & Workforce Development Agency,
3 against City & County of San Francisco, Sheriff’s Office, pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code Section 2699 and 2699.3 More than 300 days have expired since the request for such charges was
4
made, hence Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan has exercised all of her administrative prerequisite to
5
bringing claims under 1102.5 of the California Labor Code.
6
(v) Retaliation against Plaintiff Deputy Anjie Versher
7
62. In the housing of male deputies, those who pose a substantial risk of harm to themselves, others 8 and the deputy staff are housed in specially equipped cells and housing areas with like individuals where 9 the staff can apply restraint devices in a manner which is safe for the deputized staff. However, in the
10 female only pods, where only females are allowed to work, the female inmates who suffer from mental
11 and emotional challenges (normally subject to “administrative segregation”) which create a greater risk
12 of injury to the deputized staff have no similar housing, no specially equipped cells, no specially created
13 equipment, and no segregated housing areas where the staff can apply restraint devices in a manner which is safe for the deputized staff.
14
63. Female deputies who work this area are necessarily incurring greater risk of injury and greater
15
safety risks than male deputies who are not permitted to work this area.
16
64. Female deputies who complain, such as Anjie Versher, have complained within the 300 days
17
prior to the filing of their EEOC complaint, and since then, have been counseled, disciplined, and 18 written up, and suffered other forms of discipline for conduct where the motivation for such discipline 19 by the defendant has been to cause a chilling effect on the complaints of gender based discrimination of
20 this deputies.
21 65. Prior to the change in staffing of female only pods at CJ #8, Plaintiff Versher had an outstanding
22 record of service to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. She was, almost without exception, highly
23 regarded and had an exemplary service record. Her annual reviews were likewise at or above expectations. This changed after she began to complain of gender based discrimination, treatment and
24
danger to women in the female only pods of CJ#8.
25
66. With the change in staffing occurring on or about October 4, 2006, Plaintiff Versher began
26
shortly thereafter to voice complaints and concerns as to her safety and the safety of other deputies in
27
the daily “muster.” For approximately two to three months after the change in October 2006, whereby 28 only women would work CJ #8 female pods, Plaintiff complained to her immediate supervisors, and
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 14
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page15 of 33

1 then moving up the chain of command. She complained of gender based discrimination to Sgt. Wallace,

2 Lt. Tilton, then to her captain, Pecot.

3 67. Since her immediate supervisors refused to talk with her and seek a remedy to the illegal
discriminatory conduct and harm caused to plaintiff, towards the end of October 2006, Plaintiff Versher
4
did approach and complain directly to the top manager at her unit, specifically Chief Thomas Arata, the
5
top level jail commander. After voicing her complaint to him, he dismissed the complaint and told her
6
that she failed to follow the chain of command. Plaintiff Versher told him that she had complained and
7
that she did not trust Wallace, Tilton and Pecot because they were not responding to her complaints and
8 were retaliating against her. Arata told Deputy Versher that he would talk to Captain Pecot. Nothing

9 further happened and at no time did Captain Pecot approach Plaintiff.

10 68. In addition to verbal complaints, Plaintiff Versher filed a complaint of gender based

11 discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on December 4, 2006. The

12 Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued a right to sue letter to plaintiff in this matter on or

13 about December 13, 2006.
69. In addition to verbal complaints, Versher filed a complaint of gender based discrimination with
14
the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco on or about February 20, 2007.
15
70. Female Deputy Versher suffered reprisals and retaliation for having complained of the gender
16
based discrimination and the harm caused by the gender based discrimination.
17
71. As a result of repeated complaints, and while her work performance had not been altered or been
18 deficient, on or about December 23, 2006, Plaintiff was given an undeserving negative performance

19 evaluation.

20

(a) for having gone to complain to Chief Arata and not accepting the form of discrimination

21

without complaints, the review stated, “When given constructive criticism at times, Deputy

22

Versher argues the point” … and “At times, Deputy Versher has not followed the proper

23

chain of command. Deputy Versher will seek answers or results to her issues from various

supervisors, circumventing the chain of command.”
24
(b) As to her communication problems, as it relates to her communication with her superiors and
25
coworkers, her review states, “Deputy Versher effectively communicates with the inmate
26
population; however she has issues communicating her work related concerns with her

27
fellow deputies. Deputy Versher appears at times to be too forceful and has a problem

28

communicating her message.”

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 15
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page16 of 33

1

(c) Further the review chastises Plaintiff Versher for her complaints that because she is not a

2

team player and does not see the benefit of such gender based discrimination to the

3

employer, she is occasionally uncooperative and needs to improve her ability to take

direction.
4

(d) When Plaintiff Versher challenged Lt. Bruno and asked the basis for these undeserving
5
scores and comments, especially since Lt. Bruno had not been in a position to have observed
6
most of the conduct alleged during the period of time for which the review was to apply, Lt.
7
Bruno stated that the information for such a complaint about Plaintiff Versher’s performance

8

used for the review was given to her by Sgt. Wallace, Lt. Tilton, and Capt. Pecot.

9 72. Plaintiff reviewed and rebutted the work performance review as being undeserved and

10 challenged the basis for such review. Shortly after her written challenge, Plaintiff was asked by Capt.

11 Pecot if they could just shred the review and pretend it did not happen.

12 73. On or about February 12, 2007, Lt. Tilton prepared and served on Plaintiff Versher a second

13 “Employee Performance Appraisal.” This time the appraisal was stellar and without significant
blemish, and commented that Plaintiff Versher was an excellent employee for the Sheriff’s Department.
14
The second appraisal was for the same time period, same conduct, the same work and the same
15
performance as before. The difference between the two performance reviews being that the written
16
complaint to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing was served on defendant in the time
17
between the first and the second.
18 74. However, the reprisals did not stop. On May 16, 2007, plaintiff was called to a meeting with her

19 supervisors, Wallace, Tilton and Pecot. Plaintiff asked if she needed a union representative if there was

20 any claim of wrongdoing on Plaintiff’s part. Plaintiff was told by Tilton that she was not in any trouble.

21 If there was any claim of wrongdoing, as a Peace Officer, Plaintiff was entitled to union representation

22 under the National Labor Relations Act and the California Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights,

23 (California Government Code Section 3300.) Contrary to the specific representation of Tilton, upon
participating in the meeting, Plaintiff was accused by her superiors present, Wallace, Tilton and Pecot,
24
of violating San Francisco Sheriff’s Departmental Rule Section 2.35 in that Plaintiff failed to notify her
25
superiors that she had a close relative in her custody and supervision, allegedly her niece, a woman by
26
the name of Tricia Hurd, and not informing her supervisors of a family member being under her
27
custody. At the time of the meeting and allegations against her, defendant knew that there was no truth
28 to such an allegation and continued to make the allegation and violation of the rights of this plaintiff

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 16
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page17 of 33

1 without regard to their investigation which demonstrated no family relationship.

2 75. On or about June 13, 2007, plaintiff took charge of CJ #8, in “D” pod, an all female pod staffed

3 by only female deputies. Plaintiff was required to staff the unit by herself with 56 inmates under her

immediate supervision and inspections about to occur.
4

(a) On top of an immense work load, plaintiff was told at the start of her shift that there were
5
three inmates in a holding cell.
6
(b) The written procedures of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, specifically the San
7
Francisco Sheriff’s Department County Jail # 8 Operation Manual, Pod Management and

8

Supervision, Procedure 36, Section III Routine Operation, Division D, commands that the

9

deputy who places prisoners in a holding cell notify her supervisor and advise if medical

10

attention is necessary.

11

(c) This holding cell for Pod D lacks any designation or protocol for the number of prisoners, the

12

type of prisoners, any limitations on use of the pod, and any limitations on housing of

13

prisoners.

(d) The female graveyard deputy put three prisoners into the holding cell because they were
14

“horse playing.”
15
(e) Plaintiff worked the day shift (07:00 to 15:00 hours) by herself and without incident.
16
(f) There was neither protocol in place for plaintiff to alter or amend the holding cell assignment

17
nor any protocol for plaintiff to advise her supervisors of the presence of inmates in the

18

holding cell.

19

(g) The presence of these inmates in the holding cell and information as to why they were in the

20

holding cell was made known to the supervisor by reason of the log kept for that pod which

21

was signed by the graveyard deputy and the graveyard supervisor.

22

(h) Plaintiff had never been instructed, in writing or otherwise, to advise her supervisor or

23

anyone else when there are inmates in the holding cell from a prior shift.

(i) Plaintiff’s supervisor had equal access to the information about the presence of inmates in the
24
cell by reason of the log.
25
(j) Regardless, on June 26, 2007, plaintiff sustained a written disciplinary action for not advising
26
her supervisor of the presence of three inmates in the holding cell and having three people in

27
a one person cell.

28

(k) Said written disciplinary action was without any factual basis and was in whole or substantial

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 17
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page18 of 33

1

part, retaliation for having complained of gender based discrimination by Plaintiff Deputy

2

Versher.

3 76. That as a result of the repeated complaints by Plaintiff Versher, Plaintiff has sustained adverse
employment actions and harm likely to cause a reasonable deputy to be chilled in seeking to bring
4
complaints of discrimination to the employer.
5
77. On or about February 22, 2007, Plaintiff ANJIE VERSHER, filed a complaint with the City and
6
County of San Francisco’s Controller’s offer with respect to her retaliation complaints under Labor
7
Code Section 1102.5 and violation of Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights, Government Code
8 Section 3300, et seq. Said complaints were rejected and denied in writing by the City and County of

9 San Francisco on or about March 6, 2007.

10 E. Internal Complaints, Administrative Complaints And Issuance of Right To Sue

11 78. The plaintiffs herein have provided numerous internal complaints, administrative complaints and

12 secured right to sue letters or otherwise exhausted administrative procedures.

13 79. On or about October 2, 2006, on behalf of each of the plaintiffs herein, the San Francisco Deputy
Sheriff’s Association did write to Sheriff Michael Hennessey objecting to the policy in question as
14
illegal gender based discrimination. On or about October 18, 2006, in response to the letter sent to
15
Sheriff Michael Hennessey, Chief Arata indicated that the Sheriff’s Department would continue with the
16
two tiered gender based assignment of hours and working conditions pursuant to the new policy.
17
80. On or about October 18, 2006, on behalf of each of the plaintiffs, the San Francisco Deputy
18 Sheriff’s Association did write to Director of Employee Relations, Department of Human Resources, for

19 the City and County of San Francisco objecting to the policy as illegal gender based discrimination.

20 81. On or about October 19, 2006, on behalf of each of the plaintiffs herein, the San Francisco

21 Deputy Sheriff’s Association did write to Under Sheriff Jan Dempsey objecting to the policy as illegal

22 gender based discrimination and offering alternatives to the female deputy only policy in female only

23 pods. The offer was rejected.
82. Shortly after the institution of female only deputies in female only pods on or about October 7,
24
2006, plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Anjie Versher, complained of said actions as discriminatory and
25
harmful to women in muster to her immediate supervisors. Thereafter, since her immediate supervisors
26
refused to talk with her and seek a remedy to the illegal discriminatory conduct and harm caused to
27
plaintiff, towards the end of October 2006, Plaintiff Versher did approach and complain directly to the
28 top manager at her unit, specifically Chief Thomas Arata, the top level jail commander. After voicing

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 18
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page19 of 33
1 her complaint to him, he dismissed the complaint and told her that she failed to follow the chain of
2 command. Plaintiff Versher told him that she had complained and that she did not trust them because
3 they were not responding to her complaints and were retaliating against her. Arata told Versher that he would talk to Captain Pecot. Nothing further happened and at no time did Captain Pecot approach
4
Plaintiff.
5
83. In addition to verbal complaints, Plaintiff Versher filed a complaint of gender based
6
discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on December 4, 2006. Said
7
Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued a right to sue letter to plaintiff in this matter on or 8 about December 13, 2006. 9 84. Further and in addition to verbal complaints, Plaintiff Versher filed a complaint of gender based
10 discrimination with the Superior Court of California in the City and County of San Francisco on or
11 about February 20, 2007.
12 85. After months of verbal complaints, on February 25, 2007, Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan drafted
13 a written grievance regarding outstanding safety issues in the female pod of CJ #8 due to the gender based discriminatory policy for assignment of female deputies to the female pods, which included short
14
staffing due to the refusal to place available men in the female pots, and lighting differences in the
15
female pods creating an even greater unsafe work place. Plaintiff Mattie Spires-Morgan also
16
complained in writing of the safety issues created by having only one deputy for the entire pod where
17
that deputy is responsible for providing food and providing the medications, which left no one attentive 18 to the remainder of the pod and the security needs for the remainder of the pod. The Sheriff’s 19 Department and Lt Minor only laughed at these complaints.
20 86. On or about March 7, 2007, Plaintiff Sharon Castillo presented a written complaint of gender
21 based discrimination of only female deputies in female only pods to Sheriff Michael Hennessy, citing
22 safety, lack of opportunity for experience for promotions, and a loss of moral in being subjected to this
23 system of gender based assignments and risks. On or about March 20, 2007, Sheriff Hennessy wrote to Plaintiff Sharon Castillo without justifying a female deputy only policy in female pods. He rejected her
24
complaint and stated, “a condition of employment with this Department is the willingness to work in any
25
assignment, on any shift, with any days off. I am disappointed when employees forget this and believe
26
that they are somehow entitled to work some, but not all, assignments within the Department. Finally, if
27
you find you are stressed for any reason, I suggest you contact the Employee Assistance Program. They 28 offer a range of services to help people manage the stress in their lives.”
Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 19
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page20 of 33

1 87. Plaintiffs complained, by means of cross-filing with the United States Government, the Equal

2 Employment Opportunity Commission, on or about March 28, 2007, (except for Plaintiff Roland Zanie

3 who filed on April 2, 2007) and received a Right to Sue on said claim of Discrimination and Retaliation

(a) on May 16, 2007, as and for Plaintiffs DENNIS CARTER, ***********, ARTURO
4

MEDRANO, ANTHONY PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, WENDY RODGERS-WELLS,
5
******, ****, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, ***, ANJIE
6
VERSHER, BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, ROLAND ZANIE, ******;
7
(b) on May 21, 2007, TERESA FOX, TORI JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN, MICHAEL JONES,

8

RICHARD LEE, SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON, SUKHWANT MANN, GLORIA MARTIN;

9

(c) on or about May 22, 2007, as and for Plaintiffs ******, ZAINABU ANDERSON, JOHN

10

ARITA, SHARON CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY, ************, MARLA DENZER,

11

PATTI FLYNN, ******, KEVIN O’SHEA

12

(d) on or about June 6, 2007, as and for Plaintiff JON GRAY,

13

(e) Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO, FELISHA THOMAS,

JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, MATTIE SPIRES-
14

MORGAN, and ****** , complained, by means of cross-filing with the United States
15
Government, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on or about November 15, 2007,
16
and received a Right to Sue on said claim of Discrimination and or Retaliation on or about

17
February 19, 2008. That by means of cross filing with the EEOC for and on behalf of the

18

Department of Fair Employment and Housing, on or about November 15, 2007, all plaintiffs

19

filed their complaint of discrimination and/or retaliation with the Fair Employment and Housing

20

Department of the State of California. That on or about January 16, 2008, and pursuant to the

21

cross filing agreement between the EEOC and the DFEH, a right to sue on behalf of the claims

22

under the Fair Employment and Housing Act were filled, Plaintiffs have filed suit within one

23

year of the issuance of the right to sue letters under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and

within 90 days of the issuance of same under Title VII by the EEOC.
24
(f) Plaintiff MARTHA ORTEGA complained, by means of cross-filing with the United States
25
Government, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on or about February 26, 2008,
26
and received a Right to Sue on said claim of Discrimination and or Retaliation on or about

27
March 20, 2009. That by means of cross filing with the EEOC for and on behalf of the

28

Department of Fair Employment and Housing, on or about February 26, 2008, she filed her

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 20
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page21 of 33

1

complaint of discrimination and/or retaliation with the Fair Employment and Housing

2

Department of the State of California. That pursuant to the cross filing agreement between the

3

EEOC and the DFEH, a right to sue on behalf of the claims under the Fair Employment and

Housing Act were filled, Plaintiff Ortega have filed suit within one year of the issuance of the
4

right to sue letters under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and tolling of said right to sue
5
letter, and within 90 days of the issuance of same under Title VII by the EEOC.
6
88. That by means of cross filing with the EEOC for and on behalf of the Department of Fair
7
Employment and Housing, on or about March 28, 2007, all plaintiffs (except for Roland Zanie who filed

8 his charge on or about April 2, 2007, and PAMELA WALKER, GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO,

9 FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, MATTIE

10 SPIRES-MORGAN, and ******* , who filed as stated above) filed their complaint of discrimination

11 and retaliation with the Fair Employment and Housing Department of the State of California. That on or

12 about March 28, 2007, and pursuant to the cross filing agreement between the EEOC and the DFEH, a

13 right to sue on behalf of the claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act were filled, except for
Roland Zanie who’s Right to Sue under the DFEH was filed on or about April 2, 2007.
14
89. Plaintiffs have filed suit within one year of the issuance of the right to sue letters under the Fair
15
Employment and Housing Act and within 90 days of the issuance of same under Title VII by the EEOC.
16
90. On or about February 22, 2007, Plaintiff ANJIE VERSHER, filed a complaint with the City and
17
County of San Francisco’s Controller’s offer with respect to her retaliation complaints under Labor
18 Code Section 1102.5 and violation of Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights, Government Code

19 Section 3300, et seq. Said complaints were denied in writing by the City and County of San Francisco

20 on or about March 6, 2007. Said complaint was thereafter rejected and denied in writing by the City and

21 County of San Francisco.

22 91. On or about April 7, 2007 Plaintiffs LISA JANSSEN, and MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN filed

23 complaints with the City and County of San Francisco’s Controller’s offer with respect to their
retaliation complaints under Labor Code Section 1102.5 and violation of Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill
24
of Rights, Government Code Section 3300, et seq. Said complaints were denied in writing by the City
25
and County of San Francisco on or about April 23, 2007.
26
92. On or about April 20, 2007, Plaintiffs LISA JANSSEN and MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN filed
27
complaints with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency pursuant to Labor Code
28 Sections 1102.5 and 2699 et seq, with more than 33 days having passed since the issuance of the charge

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 21
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page22 of 33

1 and by operation of law, the administrative process has been concluded.

2 93. On or about June 1, 2007 and again on June 11, 2007, Plaintiff Anjie Versher, by and through

3 her representative filed a complaint and a claim with the City and County of San Francisco, through the

Sheriff’s Department, for violation of the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights. The claim of
4

Plaintiff Anjie Versher as to a violation of the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights was denied by
5

the Sheriff’s Department on or about June 8, 2007.

6
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

7

(Gender Discrimination, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000(e) et seq)

(Plaintiffs v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)
8

9 94. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth here.
10 95. Defendant City and County of San Francisco, were, at all times relevant, an employer within the
meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000(e) et seq.) Specifically, that at all times relevant
11
the said defendant carries on activities which affects commerce within and employs more than 15
12
people. (42 USC 2000e (b) and (h))
13
96. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF
14
SAN FRANCISCO.
15 97. Plaintiffs ***, ZAINABU ANDERSON, SHARON CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY, *******,

16 **************, MARLA DENZER, PATTI FLYNN, TERESA FOX, TORI JACKSON, LISA

17 JANSSEN, SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON, GLORIA MARTIN, WENDY RODGERS-WELLS,

18 *******, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, ANJIE VERSHER,

19 BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, PAMELA WALKER, GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO,

FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, and
20
MARTHA ORTEGA were treated less favorably in the terms and conditions of employment and
21
sustained numerous adverse actions as a result of their gender, to wit female, in that they were:
22
(a) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male deputies due to conditions of
23
the female pods, as cited above, that these female deputies are forced to work in;

24

(b) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male counterparts due to the lack

25

of adequate staffing, as cited above;

26

(c) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male counterparts due to

27

depravation of equipment and facilities to handle the inmates which pose a greater risk

28

of physical injury due to mental and emotional stability issues;

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 22
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page23 of 33

1

(d) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male counterparts by mixing a

2

mental and emotionally unstable group with others;

3

(e) Compelled to work harder with inmates who are more difficult than male inmates.

(f) Female inmates require more attention and are more violent towards each plaintiff;
4

(g) These female plaintiffs routinely work though breaks and lunch periods in order to
5
protect themselves and their partner from the risk of physical harm exacerbated by
6
supervising the pod alone, and are deprived pay and compensation for such work;
7
(h) Limited in their job duties and posts compared to their male counterparts limiting their

8

ability to compete for advancement;

9

(i) Subject to falsification of their achievements and trainings by Department managers who

10

refused to permit them to train at other posts in order to preserve their position in CJ#8;

11

(j) Harmed and reduced in their ability to promote and secure advancement;

12

(k) Subjected to increased levels of job stress as compared to their male counterparts.

13 98. At all relevant times during their employment, these female Plaintiffs were treated less favorably
than others who are male seeking and holding employment with Defendant City and County of San
14
Francisco, due to plaintiffs’ gender, and within 300 days of such adverse discriminatory actions they
15
filed discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for use by the EEOC
16
and for cross filing with the DFEH.
17
99. As a result of the discriminatory practice of assigning only female deputies to female pods of
18 CJ#8, Plaintiffs suffered general damages and emotional distress due to the acts of discrimination.

19 100. Plaintiffs JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, JON GRAY, MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD

20 LEE, SUKHWANT MANN, ARTURO MEDRANO, ******, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY

21 PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, *********, *******, ROLAND ZANIE, ******, ****** have been

22 treated less favorably because of gender, male, in the terms and conditions of employment and sustained

23 numerous adverse actions in that they were:
(a) Denied overtime work and pay;
24
(b) Reduced in their ability to promote and secure advancement due to elimination of
25
opportunity to function at various posts;
26
101. At all relevant times, these male Plaintiffs were treated less favorably than others who are female
27
seeking and holding employment with Defendant City and County of San Francisco, due to plaintiffs’
28 gender, and within 300 days of such adverse discriminatory actions they filed discrimination claims with

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 23
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page24 of 33

1 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for use by the EEOC and for cross filing with the

2 DFEH.

3 102. As a result of the discriminatory practice of assigning only female deputies to female pods of

CJ#8, Plaintiffs suffered general damages and loss of income due to the acts of discrimination.
4

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:
5

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

6

(Gender Discrimination, FEHA (California Government Code § 12940 (a))

7

(Plaintiffs v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)

8 103. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth here.

9 104. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, is and was, at all times relevant, an
10 employer as defined by California Government Code Section 12926. That at all times relevant the said
defendant carries on activities which affects commerce within and employs more than five (5) people.
11
105. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were employed by the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
12
FRANCISCO.
13
106. Plaintiffs **********, ZAINABU ANDERSON, SHARON CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY,
14
************, ************, MARLA DENZER, PATTI FLYNN, TERESA FOX, TORI
15 JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN, SANDRA MACLIN-GIBSON, GLORIA MARTIN, WENDY
16 RODGERS-WELLS, *******, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN,

17 ANJIE VERSHER, BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, PAMELA WALKER,

18 GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO, FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA KINCADE,

19 EMIKO THEODORIDIS, and MARTHA ORTEGA were treated less favorably in the terms and

conditions of employment and sustained numerous adverse actions as a result of their gender, to wit
20

female, in that they were:
21

(a) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male deputies due to conditions of
22
the female pods, as cited above, that these female deputies are forced to work in;

23
(b) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male counterparts due to the lack

24

of adequate staffing, as cited above;

25

(c) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male counterparts due to

26

depravation of equipment and facilities to handle the inmates which pose a greater risk

27

of physical injury due to mental and emotional stability issues;

28

(d) Exposed to increased risk of physical harm over their male counterparts by mixing a

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 24
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page25 of 33

1

mental and emotionally unstable group with others;

2

(e) Compelled to work harder with inmates who are more difficult than male inmates.

3

(f) Female inmates require more attention and are more violent towards each plaintiff;

(g) These female plaintiffs routinely work though breaks and lunch periods in order to
4

protect themselves and their partner from the risk of physical harm exacerbated by
5
supervising the pod alone, and are deprived pay and compensation for such work;
6
(h) Limited in their job duties and posts compared to their male counterparts limiting their
7
ability to compete for advancement;

8

(i) Subject to falsification of their achievements and trainings by Department managers who

9

refused to permit them to train at other posts in order to preserve their position in CJ#8;

10

(j) Harmed and reduced in their ability to promote and secure advancement;

11

(k) Subjected to increased levels of job stress as compared to their male counterparts.

12 107. At all relevant times during their employment, these female Plaintiffs were treated less favorably

13 than others who are male seeking and holding employment with Defendant City and County of San
Francisco, due to plaintiffs’ gender, and within one year of such adverse discriminatory actions they
14
filed discrimination claims with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, who issued a right to
15
sue letter on for each plaintiff, as stated above.
16
108. As a result of the discriminatory practice of assigning only female deputies to female pods of
17
CJ#8, Plaintiffs suffered general damages and emotional distress due to the acts of discrimination.
18 109. Plaintiffs JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, JON GRAY, MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD

19 LEE, SUKHWANT MANN, ARTURO MEDRANO, ******, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY

20 PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, ********, *****, ROLAND ZANIE, ******, and ****** have been

21 treated less favorably because of gender, male, in the terms and conditions of employment and sustained

22 numerous adverse actions in that they were:

23

(a) Denied overtime work and pay;

(b) Reduced in their ability to promote and secure advancement due to elimination of
24
opportunity to function at various posts.
25
110. At all relevant times during their employment, these male Plaintiffs were treated less favorably
26
than others who are female seeking and holding employment with Defendant City and County of San

27
Francisco, due to plaintiffs’ gender, and within 300 days of such adverse discriminatory actions they

28 filed discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for use by the EEOC

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 25
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page26 of 33

1 and for cross filing with the DFEH, as aforesaid above.

2 111. As a result of the discriminatory practice of assigning only female deputies to female pods of

3 CJ#8, Plaintiffs suffered general damages and loss of income due to the acts of discrimination.

4
////
5
////
6
7

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Gender Employment Restrictions Title VII (42 USC 2000(e))
(Plaintiffs v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)

8
112. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth here.
9
113. That in order to preclude and prevent discrimination and to thwart the badges of discrimination,
10
any and all attempts to exclude any gender from participating in seeking employment is precluded by

11 Title VII (42 USC 2000(e)).

12 114. That as a result of having created the female pods in CJ #8, and having a policy and practice to

13 exclude males from employment in said pods, since October 2006, Defendant CITY AND COUNTY

14 OF SAN FRANCSCO did advertise and limit the opportunity for employment in the female pods to

15 female deputies by means of written notice and postings, all in violation of Title VII (42 USC 2000(e))

16 115. That as a result of violations of Title VII (42 USC 2000(e)) plaintiffs have been injured.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:
17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

(Advertisement for Gender Discrimination, FEHA (California Government Code § 12940 (d))

19

(Plaintiffs v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)

20 116. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as if set forth here.
21 117. That in order to preclude and prevent discrimination and to thwart the badges of discrimination,
22 any and all attempts to exclude any gender from participating in seeking employment is precluded by
23 California Government Code Section 12940 (d).
118. That as a result of having created the female pods in CJ #8, and having a policy and practice to
24
exclude males from employment in said pods, since October 2006, Defendant CITY AND COUNTY
25
OF SAN FRANCSCO did advertise and limit the opportunity for employment in the female pods to
26
female deputies by means of written notice and postings, all in violation of California Government Code
27
Section 12940 (d). 28 119. That as a result of said violations of California Government Code Section 12940 (d), plaintiffs

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 26
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page27 of 33

1 have been injured as aforesaid.

2

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:

3 ///

///
4

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5

(Retaliation For Protected Activity (28 USC 2000e (e))

6 (Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires, Anderson, Gray, and Versher v. Defendant City and County of SF)

7 120. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth here.

8 121. That motivated as retribution for plaintiffs having engaged in a protected activity, complaining to

9 their superiors, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Superior Court of California

10 of the unlawful form of gender based discrimination and/or the resulting harm, injury, and increased risk

of harm and injury, plaintiffs suffered losses and adverse actions as a result of said complaints;
11
122. As a result of retaliation by Defendant City and County of San Francisco, for such protected
12
activity,
13
(a) Plaintiff LISA JANSSEN was charged with violations of the code of conduct of the San

14
Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained a written adverse action which will affect her

15

ability to promote and seek advancement in the future and threatened her with loss of

16

employment should she complain in that manner again;

17

(b) Plaintiff MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN was charged with various violations of the code of

18

conduct of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained an adverse action which

19

will affect her ability to promote and seek advancement in the future, and has sustained

repeated instances of hostile work environment, including seeking inmates bringing charges
20

against SPIRES-MORGAN as a means of imposing punishment, when such attempts to
21
secure such inmate charges were without any factual basis;
22
(c) Plaintiff ZAINABU ANDERSON, who sought time off from work under the Family and
23
Medical Leave Act for health conditions of her son, with various violations of the code of

24

conduct of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained an adverse action which

25

will affect her ability to promote and seek advancement in the future.

26

(d) Plaintiff JON GRAY was charged with various violations of the code of conduct of the San

27

Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained an adverse action which will affect his ability

28

to promote and seek advancement in the future. ******************

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 27
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page28 of 33

1

(e) Plaintiff ANJIE VERSHER sustained a retaliatory written performance appraisal, a written

2

disciplinary action against her, was accused of failing to advise of the presence of a family

3

member in custody, which will affect her ability to promote, affect her ability to seek a

transfer to another assignment, and seek advancement in the future and threatened her with
4

loss of employment should she complain in that manner again.
5
123. Said actions are in violation of 28 USC 2000e, retaliation for having participated in a protected
6
activity, complaining of gender based discrimination in the workplace.
7
124. As a result of such retaliatory discrimination and conduct, plaintiffs have suffered general and

8 special damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

9

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:

10

11

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation For Protected Activity (California Government Code § 12940(k)))

12

(Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires, Anderson, Gray, Versher v. Defendant City and County of SF)

13
125. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth here.
14
126. That motivated for retribution and revenge that plaintiffs having engaged in a protected activity,
15 complained to their superiors, complained in muster, complained the Department of Fair Employment

16 and Housing, and the Superior Court of California of the unlawful form of gender based discrimination

17 and/or the resulting harm, injury, and increased risk of harm and injury, plaintiffs suffered losses and

18 adverse actions as a result of said complaints;

19 127. As a result of retaliation by Defendant City and County of San Francisco, for such protected

activity,
20

(a) Plaintiff LISA JANSSEN was charged with violations of the code of conduct of the San
21
Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained a written adverse action which will affect her
22
ability to promote and seek advancement in the future and threatened her with loss of
23
employment should she complain in that manner again;

24

(b) Plaintiff MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN was charged with various violations of the code of

25

conduct of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained an adverse action which will

26

affect her ability to promote and seek advancement in the future, and has sustained repeated

27

instances of hostile work environment, including seeking inmates bringing charges against

28

SPIRES-MORGAN as a means of imposing punishment, when such attempts to secure such

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 28
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page29 of 33

1

inmate charges were without any factual basis;

2

(c) Plaintiff ZAINABU ANDERSON, who sought time off from work under the Family and

3

Medical Leave Act for health conditions of her son, with various violations of the code of

conduct of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained an adverse action which will
4

affect her ability to promote and seek advancement in the future;
5
(d) Plaintiff JON GRAY was charged with various violations of the code of conduct of the San
6
Francisco Sheriff’s Department and sustained an adverse action which will affect his ability to
7
promote and seek advancement in the future.

8

(e) Plaintiff ANJIE VERSHER sustained a retaliatory written performance appraisal, a written

9

disciplinary action against her, was accused of failing to advise of the presence of a family

10

member in custody, which will affect her ability to promote, affect her ability to seek a transfer

11

to another assignment, and seek advancement in the future and threatened her with loss of

12

employment should she complain in that manner again.

13 128. Said actions are in violation of California Government Code Section 12940 (k), retaliation for

having participated in a protected activity, complaining of gender based discrimination. As a result of
14

such retaliation, plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages in an amount exceeding the
15

jurisdictional minimum of this court.

16
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:

17
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

(Failure to Prevent Discrimination/Retaliation (Government Code § 12940(k))

(Plaintiffs v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)
19

129. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth here.
20

130. Defendant City and County of San Francisco had an affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps
21
necessary to prevent discrimination on the basis of and due to Plaintiffs’ gender as mandated by
22
California Government Code Section 12940 (k).
23
131. Defendant City and County of San Francisco breached its affirmative duty to take all reasonable

24 steps necessary to prevent discrimination and provide accommodations and breached such affirmative

25 duty to Plaintiffs.

26 132. As a result of the failure to take all reasonable steps, including the failure to train, monitor,

27 protect, enforce, and oversee the mandates for anti-discrimination rules Plaintiffs have been injured in

28 the manner set forth herein.

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 29
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page30 of 33

1 133. As a result of such intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered general and special

2 damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
3 134. As a further proximate result of Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’s
intentional discriminatory actions against plaintiffs, plaintiffs have suffered a loss of income and future
4
income loss, in an amount not yet determined and Plaintiffs pray leave that when these amounts are
5
known, that they may amend this complaint to allege such amounts.
6
135. As a further proximate result of Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’s
7
intentional discriminatory actions against plaintiffs, plaintiffs have suffered a loss of income and future 8 medical expenses in an amount not yet determined and Plaintiffs pray leave that when these amounts are
9 known, that they may amend this complaint to allege such amounts.

10

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:

11

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12

(Whistleblower – California Labor Code § 1102.5(b))

(Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)
13

14 136. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth at length.
15 137. Plaintiffs JANSSEN, SPIRES-MORGAN, and VERSHER did report to a government agency,
the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department their complaint that the practice of staffing the female jail pods
16
was a violation of law under California Government Code Section 12940 (a) and California Penal Code
17
Section 4021 (b).
18
138. Plaintiff complained to and brought this potential illegal conduct to the attention of the
19
Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO pursuant to the training given to plaintiffs for 20 reporting such activity. Plaintiffs complained to their immediate superiors as well as those in the
21 Department of Human Resources.

22 139. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, by and through their agents engaged

23 in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts, against Plaintiffs to cause harm and

24 damage to plaintiffs and did in fact cause harm and damage for plaintiffs having made the complaints
25 and disclosures as stated herein, all in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5 (b).
140. Plaintiffs were at all relevant times, employees of the Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
26
FRANCISCO. Their actions regarding the disclosure of improper governmental activities by
27
Defendant and others to a law enforcement and government agencies were permitted and protected
28
activities by California Labor Code §1102.5.

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 30
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page31 of 33

1 141. As a result of the conduct of Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO it has

2 become liable in this statutory action for damages and civil penalty brought against it by Plaintiffs

3 pursuant to Labor Code §1102.5.
142. That as a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF
4
SAN FRANCISCO, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs sustained severe personal injuries and general damages.
5
143. That as a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF
6
SAN FRANCISO as aforesaid, Plaintiffs have necessarily incurred liability for medical aid and
7
attention, and incurred a loss of wages and income now and in the future, all to plaintiff's special
8 damage in an amount not presently known, and plaintiffs pray leave that when such amount is

9 ascertained, plaintiffs may be permitted to amend to insert the same herein with appropriate allegations.

10

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:

11

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(POPBR– California Government Code § 3309.5)

12

(Plaintiff Versher v. Defendant City and County of San Francisco)

13
144. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing allegations of this complaint as is set forth at length.
14
145. That each of the plaintiffs holds the status of Peace Officer as that term is defined by Penal Code
15 Section 830, et seq. As such, pursuant to California Government Code Section 3300, each has a right to

16 enjoy procedural safeguards found in the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights.

17 146. That defendant did knowingly, intentionally and maliciously violate those rights for Plaintiff

18 Versher subjecting them to claims for liability pursuant to Government Code Section 3309.5 to wit:

19 147. As to Plaintiff Versher, she complained to defendant and was thereafter ordered to attend and be

interrogated by her supervisors. That the orders to attend and attend without union representation in the
20
investigative phase of questioning of Plaintiff Deputy Versher regarding alleged violations of the rules
21
of the Sheriff’s Department was a violation of the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights and done maliciously
22
and intentionally to harm plaintiff when said questioning and interrogation was the only topic raised, to
23
wit: when asked if this is something that could lead to disciplinary action, Tilton indicated, with the tacit
24 agreement of Wallace and Pecot, that there was no need for her union and there was nothing that she had
25 done that was wrong, with Wallace and Pecot present, in agreement, and stating nothing to the contrary.

26 148. That each of the plaintiffs suffered actual damages at the hands of the wrongdoing of the said

27 defendant and therefore entitled to compensation for such injury pursuant to California Government

28 Code Section 3309.5.

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 31
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page32 of 33

1 149. That the conduct of each of the defendants as set forth here was and is malicious in the denial of

2 the rights of the plaintiffs and done with the intent to harm the plaintiffs, such that each of the plaintiffs

3 are entitled to a civil penalty for the wrongdoing of the said defendants as set forth in California Police

Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights of $25,000, Government Code Section 3309.5.
4

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant as set forth below:
5
a. For a money judgment awarding Plaintiffs a sum according to proof as general
6
damages for physical and mental pain and emotional distress, anguish and suffering
7
against each of the defendants;

8

b. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including lost wages, and

9

all other sums of money, including future benefits and future wage loss, retirement

10

benefits and other employment benefits, together with interest on said amounts,

11

according to proof;

12

c. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including medical

13

expenses and other special expenses for treatment and care, and all other sums of

money necessary to care for the Plaintiffs as a result of the conduct of Defendant.
14

d. For a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Labor Code Section
15
1102.5 (b) pursuant to the grant of such civil penalty as set forth in Labor Code
16
Section 1102.5 (f).

17
e. For a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 for violation of Government Code

18

Section 3309.5 pursuant to the grant of such civil penalty as set forth in Government

19

Code Section 3309.5(e), as well as actual damages suffered by Plaintiffs Janssen,

20

Spires-Morgan, and Versher.

21

f. For an injunction commanding that Defendant City and County of San Francisco

22

Sheriff’s Department, and any subsequent affiliated corporation or business entities,

23

post, train, and enforce the rights of all employees under the Fair Employment and

Housing Act, to be free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and to return
24

those who have suffered retaliation to the position they held prior to the retaliation,
25
including striking any and all forms of discipline against each and returning those to
26
employment who have been terminated.

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 32
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document152 Filed10/22/09 Page33 of 33

1

g. For costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees; and

2

h. For any other relief that is just and proper

3 DATED: September 30, 2009
4

Respectfully submitted, MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

5

6

__s/_________________________________

LAWRENCE D. MURRAY

7

Attorney for Plaintiffs

8

9

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

10

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all claims contained in her complaint before this court.

11

12 DATED: September 30, 2009
13

Respectfully submitted, MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

14

__s/_________________________________

15

LAWRENCE D. MURRAY

16

Attorney for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al US District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C-07-3622 SI Page 33
Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint for Damages & Injunctive Relief

 
 United States District Court, N.D. California.
Mercy AMBAT, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant.
No. C 07-03622 SI.
March 15, 2010.
Lawrence Dale Murray, Robert Close Strickland, Murray & Associates, Noah Wolfson Kanter, Attorney at Law Murray & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Margaret W. Baumgartner, City Attorney's Office, Rafal Ofierski, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' RETALIATION CLAIMS
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
*1 On February 17, 2010, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs' summary judgment motions and granting the majority of defendant's motion for summary judgment. In ruling on plaintiffs' retaliation claims, the Court reached two conclusions that are addressed in this order. First, the Court ordered the parties to augment the record with respect to plaintiff Lisa Janssen's retaliation claim. The parties have now submitted their supplemental briefs and evidence, and this order considers the merits of plaintiff Janssen's claim. Second, the Court held that plaintiffs Mattie Spires-Morgan and Anjie Versher had abandoned their retaliation claims by failing to raise them in opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion. Having been alerted by plaintiffs' counsel that SpiresMorgan and Versher discussed these claims in their declarations, the Court will now address the merits of the claims.
I. Plaintiff Janssen's Claims
Plaintiff Janssen contends that defendant retaliated against her by reprimanding her for complaining that the gender-based staffing policy at issue in this case (“the Policy”) constituted gender discrimination, and for participating in the present lawsuit. It is undis-

puted that Janssen called her superior, Lt. Tilton, on January 9, 2007 to complain about being detailed to a post in a female pod. During this conversation, Janssen also mentioned the pending discrimination lawsuit. Thereafter, Lt. Tilton initiated a reprimand investigation with Chief Arata during which he stated that Janssen had questioned his authority to make shift assignments and had spoken to him in a loud and unprofessional tone. Janssen was issued a reprimand by Chief Arata on February 20, 2007.
Janssen has stated a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she was issued a reprimand soon after she complained about the Policy and informed her superiors about the pending lawsuit. See Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 541 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, the burden shifts to defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the disciplinary action. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Defendant has submitted deposition testimony from Chief Arata stating that Janssen's reprimand was based on her use of an inappropriate and insubordinate tone toward Lt. Tilton. Chief Arata relied on statements from Lt. Tilton and from Sgt. Wallace, who testified at the reprimand hearing that he was near Lt. Tilton during the phone conversation with Janssen and could hear Janssen's words and her tone of voice through the phone. See Arata Depo., ex. A to Ofierski Decl., at 208:14-17, 217:25-218:21; see also Tilton Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5.
Defendant has met its burden of setting forth a nonretaliatory reason for the reprimand. However, plaintiff has created a material factual dispute with respect to whether defendant's proffered reason is a mere pretext for a retaliatory motive. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804. Plaintiff has submitted declarations from Deputies Wysinger, Williams, and Bui, all of whom aver that they were present during Janssen's phone call to Lt. Tilton and that Janssen did not make any inappropriate statements or use a loud or unprofessional tone. See Wysinger Decl. ¶¶ 3-6; Williams Decl. ¶¶ 4-10; Bui Decl. ¶¶ 5-9. Plaintiff's submission presents significant factual and credibility disputes that cannot appropriately be resolved on summary judgment. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Janssen's retaliation claim is DENIED.
II. Plaintiff Versher's Claims
*2 Defendant asserts that plaintiff Versher's retalia-

tion claims must be dismissed due to failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Versher filed a charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) in December 2006 and an additional charge with the EEOC in March 2007 in which she described the Policy and the basis of her contentions of sex discrimination, but did not mention any retaliatory acts. See ex. G to Ofierski Decl. ISO Def. MSJ.
As stated in the Court's prior order, to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over her retaliation claims, plaintiff Versher must demonstrate that she filed timely charges with the EEOC or its California equivalent, the DFEH. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep't, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir.2002). “[W]hen an employee seeks judicial relief for claims not listed in the original EEOC charge, the complaint nevertheless may encompass any discrimination like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge.” Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 291 F.3d 632, 636 (9th Cir.2002). Under this rule, “jurisdiction extends over all allegations of discrimination that either fell within the scope of the EEOC's actual investigation or an EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1100 (original emphasis) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Versher asserts that after she unsuccessfully complained about the Policy to her immediate superiors, Sgt. Wallace, Lt. Tilton, and Capt. Pecot, she ultimately took her complaint to Chief Arata. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) identifies three retaliatory acts occurring after Versher complained about the Policy: (1) issuance of a negative performance evaluation in December 2006; (2) convening of a meeting in May 2007 at which Versher's supervisors accused her of failing to inform them that she had a close relative under her custody; and (3) issuance of a written “counseling” in June 2007 ostensibly due to Versher's failure to inform a supervisor that a cell was overcrowded.FN1 See TAC ¶¶ 66-67, 71-75; see also Versher Decl. ISO Pltf. Oppo. to Def. MSJ ¶¶ 20, 23, 26.
FN1. According to the counseling document, “Counseling is not to be construed as disciplinary action. Counseling is a formal means whereby a supervisor can document a

problem and indicate to a subordinate employee the corrective action to be taken. A copy of this document will be placed in your personnel file.” See ex. 15 to Versher Depo., ex. RR to Ofierski Decl. ISO Def. MSJ.
Versher's first retaliation claim, related to the December 2006 negative performance evaluation, took place several months before Versher filed her EEOC charge. Where a plaintiff's EEOC charge fails to mention a retaliatory act that occurred before the charge was filed, “the agency [is] not on notice to investigate ... [these] instances of past retaliation” and the claim must be dismissed for failure to exhaust. Curry v. Shinseki, No. 08-16380, 2009 WL 4884329, at * 1 (9th Cir. Dec.14, 2009). Accordingly, plaintiff Versher's first retaliation claim is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
In the Court's view, however, plaintiff Versher has exhausted her second and third claims of retaliation, which concern the May 2007 meeting and the June 2007 written counseling. The acts complained of took place just months after plaintiff's EEOC charge was filed, were based on plaintiff's complaints regarding the discriminatory policy mentioned in the charge, and concerned the same defendants and same location at which the alleged discrimination was taking place. See B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1100 (in assessing whether a claim is reasonably related to allegations in an EEOC charge, court should consider the “alleged basis of the discrimination, dates of discriminatory acts specified within the charge, perpetrators of discrimination named in the charge, and any locations at which discrimination is alleged to have occurred”). Accordingly, the Court will consider the merits of these claims.
*3 The Court concludes that disputed issues of fact preclude summary judgment on plaintiff Versher's second retaliation claim, which stems from a May 2007 meeting at which Versher was confronted regarding whether she had failed to inform her supervisors that she had a close relative in custody. According to Versher, the meeting occurred after Versher's supervisors found a letter in which an inmate under Versher's supervision, Tricia Hurd, addressed Versher as “Auntie.” Versher asserts that Hurd was wellknown to jail officials and tended to refer to deputies she liked using that moniker. Versher Depo. at 172:15-20; see also Versher Decl. ¶¶ 24-25. She

states that although Lt. Tilton, Sgt. Wallace, and Capt. Pecot knew that she was not related to Hurd, they nonetheless convened a meeting at which they accused Versher of violating the jail's policy requiring deputies to inform their superiors if a relative was in custody. Versher Decl. ¶ 24. Versher was told she “did not need” a union representative at the meeting because she was “not in any trouble,” Versher Depo. at 171:16-19, but avers that all three supervisors present at the meeting accused her of a serious violation of jail rules, Versher Decl. ¶ 24. Versher admits that she was not formally disciplined after she explained she was not related to Hurd. Versher Depo. at 180:58.
Defendant contends that Versher cannot set forth a prima facie case of retaliation because she was not disciplined after the meeting. Defendant does not contest, however, that plaintiff was pulled from her shift and brought, unrepresented, into a meeting at which three supervisors accused her of violating a jail rule. In the Court's view, this action is of a type sufficient to dissuade a reasonable employee from approaching his or her superiors with a grievance, and therefore amounts to a prima face showing of retaliation. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67-68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). Even assuming defendant has proffered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the meeting, Versher's submission is also sufficient to raise a material factual dispute as to whether defendant's proffered reason was pretextual. Therefore, defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Versher's second claim of retaliation is DENIED.
Versher's third retaliation claim concerns a June 2007 counseling letter she received after she failed to notify a supervisor at the start of her shift that the deputy from the previous shift had packed three inmates into a holding cell designed for one inmate, in violation of jail safety policies. Versher Decl. ¶ 26. Versher asserts that she was unaware of any policy requiring her to immediately inform a supervisor of inmates left in a holding cell from a prior shift. Id. Versher contends that her superiors engaged in retaliation by disciplining her rather than the deputy who had created the overcrowding problem in the first place. Versher Depo. at 191:20-24.
*4 Defendant asserts that plaintiff has failed to make out a causal link between her protected activity and

the issuance of the written counseling. The Court disagrees. The close temporal proximity between plaintiff's filing of an EEOC charge, the May 2007 incident, and the present incident, coupled with plaintiff's undisputed contention that the jail policy was applied only to her and not to the other deputy involved, is sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir.2003). Although defendant has proffered a non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action-a violation of Department rules-Versher has raised a triable issue as to whether the counseling was merely a continuation of the previous retaliatory actions. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Versher's third retaliation claim is therefore DENIED.
III. Plaintiff Spires-Morgan's Claims
Finally, defendant seeks summary judgment on three retaliation claims asserted by plaintiff SpiresMorgan. Spires-Morgan asserts that, after she filed a grievance about the Policy in February 2007, the Department took three retaliatory actions against her: (1) in March 2007, the Department issued her a written counseling for unacceptable job performance; (2) in October 2007, Senior Deputy Jardin, Spires-Morgan's supervisor, chastised her; and (3) in November 2007, plaintiff was “provided with information that the [Department] intended to discipline” her for submitting insufficient paperwork in support of a sick leave request. See DFEH Charge, ex. F to Ofierski Decl. ISO Def. MSJ. Spires-Morgan contends that all of these incidents were orchestrated by Capt. Pecot. See Spires-Morgan Depo., ex. OO to Ofierski Decl. ISO Def. MSJ, at 264:11-15.
Plaintiff's first retaliation claim concerns a March 19, 2007 counseling. According to defendant, the counseling was issued for two reasons: first, because the Department had received three inmate complaints against Spires-Morgan in February and March 2007, and second, because Spires-Morgan failed to respond to a radio call on March 10, 2007. Spires-Morgan avers that she learned from the complaining inmates that Capt. Pecot had actively solicited the complaints, telling the inmates that if they complained, “they could get rid of” Spires-Morgan. Spires-Morgan Decl. ISO Pltf. Oppo. to Def. MSJ ¶ 79. SpiresMorgan admits that she did not answer the radio call, but asserts that it was common knowledge that radios often did not work. She states that on several prior

occasions her supervisors had themselves failed to respond to radio calls due to having non-functioning radios. Id. ¶¶ 80-81.
Defendant asserts that the Court should ignore plaintiff's assertions concerning Capt. Pecot's role in soliciting inmate complaints because this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. Because plaintiff may be able to present this evidence in an admissible form at trial, however, the Court may consider the substance of the evidence in ruling on defendant's summary judgment motion. Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (9th Cir.2003). Taking as true plaintiff's assertions regarding the inmate complaints and the radios, plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the counseling was issued in retaliation for plaintiff's protected activity. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff SpiresMorgan's first retaliation claim is DENIED.
*5 Spires-Morgan's second retaliation claim concerns a verbal chastisement by her supervisor, Senior Deputy Jardin, after Spires-Morgan purportedly returned late from lunch. Spires-Morgan asserts that Jardin “chastise[d][her] like a child not an adult,” which was “uncalled for and unprofessional.” Spires-Morgan Decl. ¶ 85. The Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff has failed to state a retaliation claim as a matter of law. An unpleasant interaction with one's supervisor, even one that occurs after protected activity, is not necessarily actionable retaliation. “Title VII ... does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace.” Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68. In addition, Title VII's “antiretaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm.” Id. at 67. Because Spires-Morgan has failed to set forth even a prima facie case of retaliation in connection with Jardin's conduct, defendant's motion for summary judgment as to her second retaliation claim is GRANTED.
Finally, Spires-Morgan claims the Department retaliated against her by telling her it intended to discipline her for failing to properly fill out a medical leave request by naming the person for whom she was taking leave. According to Spires-Morgan, although she did not specifically identify her sick child on the request form, she attached a copy of a hospital registration form showing her child's admission. SpiresMorgan Decl. ¶ 87. Plaintiff explains,

Sr. Deputy Jardin came to me the next day and stated that ... Capt. Pecot ordered me to put more information down.... Sr. Deputy Jardin stated she didn't know what the Captain wants and that what I wrote looks okay to her. I told her to let Capt. Pecot know I was unsure what she wanted. [Jardin] came to me the next day and read from a paper but would not show me and told me what it said, she stated that the Captain was going to write me up if she didn't get it by the end of the day. I called the Undersheriff and voice[d] my concerns. It stopped this conduct but not this history of minor retaliation.
Id. In the Court's view, the conduct plaintiff has alleged, especially when taken in combination with plaintiff's other allegations concerning Capt. Pecot, would be sufficient to dissuade a reasonable employee from submitting a grievance. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 67-68. Defendant makes no effort to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for this incident, other than to state that Spires-Morgan has not “present[ed] any evidence to suggest that Senior Deputy Jardin ... harbored any retaliatory motives.” Plaintiff has, however, submitted evidence at least raising an issue of fact as to Capt. Pecot's motives. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on SpiresMorgan's third claim is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs Janssen, Versher, and Spires-Morgan's claims of retaliation is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
*6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
N.D.Cal.,2010. Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco Slip Copy, 2010 WL 934006 (N.D.Cal.)
END OF DOCUMENT

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page1 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 MERCY AMBAT, ET AL.,

No. C 07-3622 SI

9

Plaintiffs,

v.

10

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 11 ET AL.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF STATE COURT PROCEEDING

12

Defendants.

/

13

14

On October 19, 2007, the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay

15 pending resolution of an overlapping state court proceeding. Having considered the arguments of

16 counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion to STAY pending the

17 resolution of the state court action.

18

19

BACKGROUND

20

On February 20, 2007, seven deputy sheriffs of the County of San Francisco, along with the San

21 Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association (“SFDSA”), filed a putative class-action complaint in San

22 Francisco Superior Court alleging gender discrimination against the City, Sheriff Michael Hennessey,

23 and Undersheriff Jan Dempsey. The complaint asserted two causes of action, one alleging violations

24 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the second alleging violations of

25 California Penal Code § 4021.1 The class action suit arose from defendants’ reorganization of the San

26

27

1California Penal Code § 4021 provides in relevant part: (b) It shall be unlawful for any officer, station officer, jailer, or custodial

28

personnel to search the person of any prisoner of the opposite sex, or to enter into the room or cell occupied by any prisoner of the opposite sex,

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page2 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Francisco County Jail system, which involved reassigning all female inmates from various county jails

2 to one central location housed in County Jail #8. Along with this reorganization, defendants instituted

3 a new staffing policy that permits only female deputies to work in the female pods of County Jail #8.

4 The new policy also creates a gender-based two-tiered process for selecting days off by which a female

5 deputy with less seniority than a male deputy may receive preference in selecting days off because her

6 seniority is only compared to that of other female deputies.

7

The state plaintiffs alleged the policy discriminates against female deputies because it prevents

8 them from gaining the training and experience necessary to receive promotions and further their careers

9 in law enforcement, as well as forces them to work overtime. The policy allegedly discriminates against

10 male deputies because it prevents them from gaining the training and experience that comes with

11 working in female pods and it also prevents them from signing up for working overtime in the female

12 pods. The plaintiffs also alleged that the policy discriminates against both genders because they must

13 work less desirable shifts and schedules since the gender-based two-tiered system limits deputies’ right

14 to choose regular days off. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney

15 fees, injunctive relief, and costs of suit.

16

The plaintiffs in the state case filed a First Amended Complaint on or about March 15, 2007.

17 Subsequently, the City filed a demurrer, the parties began discovery, and they participated in a Case

18 Management Conference. On October 4, 2007, the City’s demurrer was sustained and the Superior

19 Court granted leave to amend the FEHA cause of action. On October 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a

20 Second Amended Complaint that folded their allegations regarding violations of California Penal Code

21 § 4021 into one cause of action under the FEHA.2

22

Five months after the filing of the state complaint, on July 13, 2007, the thirty-five plaintiffs

23 here, seven of whom were originally named as plaintiffs in the state action, filed this federal action.

24

25

except in the company of an employee of the same sex as the prisoner.

Except as provided herein, the provisions of this subdivision shall not be

26

applied to discriminate against any employee by prohibiting appointment

or work assignment on the basis of the sex of the employee. (Emphasis

27

added).

28

2The Court grants defendants’ supplemental request for judicial notice in support of their motion.

2

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page3 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Plaintiffs, both male and female deputy sheriffs, bring nine causes of action arising under Title VII,

2 FEHA, the California Labor Code, and the California Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Similar to the state

3 case, plaintiffs allege suffering general damages and emotional distress due to the new staffing policy.

4 Unlike the state complaint, however, plaintiffs here allege three individual complaints of retaliation.

5 Plaintiffs seek similar relief as sought by the plaintiffs in the state complaint.

6

Originally, the law firm of Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller, Johnsen & Uhrhammer

7 represented all plaintiffs in the state action, both the seven named plaintiffs and the SFDSA. On June

8 22, 2007, however, Lawrence D. Murry substituted in as counsel to represent the seven individual

9 plaintiffs in the state action. He then filed this federal action where he represents the thirty-five

10 individual plaintiffs. On September 14, 2007, two months after filing this federal action and two weeks

11 after defendants brought this motion to dismiss or stay pending resolution of the state court proceeding,

12 plaintiffs’ counsel filed, and was granted, a request with the state court to dismiss without prejudice the

13 seven named plaintiffs in the state action, leaving only the SFDSA as the named plaintiff in the state

14 court class action.

15

16

LEGAL STANDARD

17

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of

18 subject matter jurisdiction may either “attack the allegations of the complaint or may be made as a

19 ‘speaking motion’ attacking the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Thornhill Publ'g Co.

20 v. Gen. Tel. and Elec., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Land v. Dollars, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.

21 4. (1947)). Where the jurisdictional issue is separable from the merits of the case, the Court need only

22 consider evidence related to the jurisdiction issue, and rule on that issue, resolving factual disputes as

23 necessary. Id. (citing Berardinelli v. Castle & Cooke, Inc., 587 F.2d 37 (9th Cir. 1978)).

24

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion that mounts a factual attack on jurisdiction, “no presumption

25 of truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not

26 preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims. Moreover, the

27 plaintiff will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.” Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav.

28 & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977).

3

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page4 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The Supreme Court has stated that Younger abstention “represents the sort of ‘threshold

2 question’ [that] may be resolved before addressing jurisdiction.” Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1, 6 n. 4

3 (2005). However, numerous courts have also considered abstention arguments within the framework

4 of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5 12(b)(1). See D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2004) (declaring

6 “Younger abstention is jurisdictional”); Miller Brewing Co. v. Ace U.S. Holdings, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d

7 735, 739 (E.D. Wisc. 2005) (“[A] motion to dismiss or stay based on an abstention doctrine raises the

8 question of whether a court should exercise subject matter jurisdiction.”); Beres v. Village of Huntley,

9 824 F. Supp. 763, 766 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

10 “appears to be an appropriate method for raising the issue of abstention”).

11

12

DISCUSSION

13

Defendants have requested that this Court abstain pursuant to the doctrine set out in Younger v.

14 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny. Under the Younger doctrine, absent extraordinary

15 circumstances, a federal court should abstain from proceeding with a case if: (1) there is an on-going

16 state court proceeding; (2) there is an important state interest at issue; and (3) there is an adequate

17 opportunity for plaintiffs to litigate the federal claims in the state court proceeding. See Younger, 401

18 U.S. at 40 (criminal proceedings only); Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457

19 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (outlining the three Younger criteria); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1

20 (1987) (extending Younger doctrine to civil proceedings). Defendants argue that abstention pursuant

21 to Younger is appropriate because a similar complaint raising similar issues is ongoing in state court and

22 the other two elements of Younger are met as well.

23

The circumstances here satisfy all three prongs of the Younger doctrine. As to the first Younger

24 element, plaintiffs argue that there is no ongoing state court proceeding because the parties in the state

25 court action are no longer the same parties involved in this action. When the state court action was first

26 filed on February 20, 2007, it named seven individuals and the SFDSA as plaintiffs. Those seven

27 individuals were also included as part of the thirty-five plaintiffs named in the federal complaint, filed

28 five months after the initiation of the state court proceeding. However, two weeks after defendants

4

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page5 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 moved this court to abstain on Younger grounds, those seven individual plaintiffs withdrew as named

2 plaintiffs from the state court proceeding, leaving the SFDSA as the only plaintiff in state court.

3 Although plaintiffs correctly observe that the named parties in state court no longer contain any named

4 parties here, that observation does not alter the fact that those seven individuals, as deputies and

5 members of the SFDSA, remain members of the putative class in the pending state court class action

6 being brought by the SFDSA, its members, and others similarly situated. Thus, plaintiffs’ contention

7 that the state court proceeding has been resolved as to those seven individuals because of their

8 successful request for dismissal is not wholly accurate.

9

The question becomes, then, whether the first Younger prong is satisfied where individual

10 members of a trade association seek to proceed in federal court when their organization is currently

11 litigating the matter on their behalf in state court. The Supreme Court has discussed this issue in the

12 broader context of whether the Younger doctrine applies to instances where a party in a federal action

13 shares similar interests as a different party in a state action. In Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452

14 (1974), two men distributing pamphlets at a shopping center received warning that if they continued

15 distribution, they would be charged with trespassing. One of the men continued distributing the

16 handbills and was arrested and prosecuted. The other left the area, avoided arrest, and filed suit in

17 federal court seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. Although the two men shared similar

18 interests, the Supreme Court held that the federal court erred by abstaining under Younger because the

19 federal plaintiff was not a party in the state court adjudication. Id. at 455-60. The Supreme Court

20 narrowed this holding, however, in Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975), where the state seized from

21 a theater owner four copies of a film that a state court had declared obscene. Around the same time, the

22 state initiated criminal proceedings against two employees of the theater, but not against the theater

23 owner. The owner filed suit in federal court seeking the return of the seized films and a declaration that 24 the state obscenity statute was unconstitutional. The Court held that the ongoing state court proceedings 25 against his employees provided the owner the opportunity to adjudicate his constitutional issues such 26 that the lower court erred by not abstaining, despite the fact that the theater owner was not a party in any 27 state court action. Id. at 349. Later, in Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975), the Court reached 28 a similar conclusion as in Steffel, but stated that “there plainly may be some circumstances in which

5

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page6 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 legally distinct parties are so closely related that they should all be subject to the Younger considerations

2 which govern any one of them.” Id. at 928.

3

While the above cases discuss scenarios involving related parties, they do not directly confront

4 the situation in the present case where an organization is the plaintiff in the state court action and

5 members of that organization are the plaintiffs in the federal action. See Cornwell v. Cal. Bd. of

6 Barbering and Cosmetology, 962 F. Supp. 1260, 1269-70 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (“No courts appear to have

7 directly confronted this issue.”). However, Chief Justice Burger discussed this issue in a concurring and

8 dissenting opinion. See Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 830-31 (1974) (Burger, C.J., concurring in part

9 and dissenting in part). In Allee, state officials in Texas arrested and prosecuted union members for

10 violating state statutes while picketing. The union and several of its members brought suit in federal

11 court seeking injunctive relief and judgment that declared the state statutes unconstitutional. A three

12 judge district court panel, having heard the case before the Supreme Court’s decision in Steffel came

13 down, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the statutes unconstitutional. The case reached the

14 Supreme Court after its decision in Steffel and, consistent with that opinion, the Court vacated and

15 remanded the district court’s ruling based in part on abstention issues. Chief Justice Burger advised the

16 lower court on the manner by which it should apply Younger when it heard the case on remand:

17

The union, to the extent that it has standing, will be seeking interference with state court

prosecutions of its members. There is an identity of interest between the union and its

18

prosecuted members; the union may seek relief only because of the prosecutions of its

members, and only by ensuring that such prosecutions cease may the union vindicate the

19

constitutional interests which it claims are violated. The union stands in the place of its

prosecuted members even as it asserts its own constitutional rights. The same comity

20

considerations apply whether the action is brought in the name of the individual arrested

union members or in the name of the union . . . 21

22 Allee, 416 U.S. at 830-31 (Burger, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

23

The Southern District of California applied Chief Justice Burger’s rationale to a similar scenario

24 involving two pending actions, one involving an organization in federal court and the other involving

25 two members of that organization in state court. See Cornwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1270. In Cornwell, Dr.

26 Cornwell, an African-American hair stylist, and the American Hairbraiders and Natural Hair Care

27 Association (“AHNHCA”) brought suit in federal court alleging various violations of both the federal

28 and California constitutions. Meanwhile, a hair salon and its owner, both belonging to the AHNHCA,

6

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page7 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 were involved in state court proceedings as a result of being cited and fined by the California Board of

2 Barbering and Cosmetology. After applying Younger to the facts, the court allowed Dr. Cornwell to

3 proceed with her action in federal court. However, guided by Chief Justice Burger’s analysis in Allee,

4 the court abstained under Younger in regard to AHNHCA. The court reasoned that:

5

[t]he problem with the current complaint is that the relief sought is really sought on

behalf of all AHNHCA’s members, not on behalf of AHNHCA itself . . . AHNHCA does

6

not operate an African hair styling business; rather it is a trade association of African

hair styling businesses. AHNHCA is actually seeking an injunction prohibiting

7

enforcement of the [Barbering and Cosmetology Act] as applied to its members . . . As

currently framed, the Court cannot grant plaintiffs the relief they seek because it would

8

act to enjoin a pending state proceeding.

9 Id. at 1271. The court allowed plaintiffs forty-five days to file an amended complaint.
10 Although Cornwell is not authoritative, the Court finds its analysis persuasive and instructive.
11 Much like the trade association in Cornwell, the SFDSA only has standing to bring an action in state
12 court because of the alleged injuries to its members.3 It seeks relief in state court on behalf of all its
13 members, which includes the thirty-five plaintiffs in this federal action, and not relief for the SFDSA
14 itself. Five months after the SFDSA began its state court action, thirty-five individual members of the
15 SFDSA brought this action in federal court seeking damages as a result of the same new staffing policy
16 that forms the factual basis of the SFDSA’s state complaint. Thus, although the thirty-five plaintiffs
17 here are not named parties in the state court action, the SFDSA is currently litigating their interests in
18 the pending state action and plaintiffs here stand ready to recover monetary awards from that action if
19 the SFDSA is successful. A decision by this Court on the matter could interfere with the pending state
20 court proceeding. See New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans (NOPSI), 491
21 U.S. 350, 373 (1989) (“It is true, of course, that a federal court’s disposition of such a case may well
22
affect, or for practical purposes preempt, a future – or, as in the present circumstances, even a pending 23
state court action.”). Therefore, as to the first Younger element, there is an ongoing state court 24
proceeding and the Court should abstain if the other two Younger requirements are met as well. See 25

26

3The SFDSA has standing in state court to bring an action on behalf of its members challenging

27

the staffing policy and seeking damages if: (1) the individual members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests being protected are relevant to the organization’s purpose; and

28

(3) the individual members are not required to participate in the lawsuit. See Apartment Ass’n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 136 Cal. App. 4th 119, 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

7

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page8 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Younger abstention requires that the federal

2 courts abstain when state court proceedings were ongoing at the time the federal action was filed.”).

3

4

The second and third prongs of Younger are also satisfied here. As to the second Younger

5 element, the Supreme Court has held that administration of state criminal facilities and the protection

6 of employees from sexual discrimination are both important issues of state interest. See Preiser v.

7 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973) (“Since these internal problems of state prisons involve issues

8 so peculiarly within state authority and expertise, the States have an important interest in not being

9 bypassed in the correction of those problems.”); Ohio Civil Rights Comm. v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc.,

10 477 U.S. 619, 628 (1986) (“We have no doubt that the elimination of prohibited sex discrimination is

11 a sufficiently important state interest . . .”). As to the third prong of Younger, the court finds no reason

12 that plaintiffs cannot pursue all of the claims included in this lawsuit in state court. State courts are

13 courts of general jurisdiction and are able to adjudicate questions of federal law. See Nevada v. Hicks,

14 533 U.S. 353, 366-67 (2001). Thus, because the state court action began five months before this action,

15 plaintiffs had the opportunity to bring any issues of federal law, such as their claims under Title VII, in

16 the state court proceeding, and plaintiffs have failed to show otherwise. See Hicks, 422 U.S. at 349

17 (finding that the state court proceeding against a related party provided the federal plaintiff the

18 opportunity to raise his constitutional claims); see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 14-17

19 (1987) (finding that the burden rests on the federal plaintiff to show that state procedural law prevents

20 presentation of claims).

21

Having found that the Younger doctrine applies to the facts here, the Court must decide whether

22 to dismiss the action or stay the proceeding pending the outcome of the state court action. When

23 Younger applies and the federal party seeks injunctive relief, federal courts should dismiss the action 24 in its entirety. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973) (“Younger v. Harris contemplates the 25 outright dismissal of the federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, both state and federal, to the 26 state courts.”); Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 816 n. 22 (1976) (“Where 27 a case is properly within [the Younger] category of cases, there is no discretion to grant injunctive 28 relief.”). “But when damages are sought and Younger principles apply, it makes sense for the federal

8

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document17 Filed10/22/07 Page9 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 court to refrain from exercising jurisdiction temporarily by staying its hand until such time as the state

2 proceeding is no longer pending.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 981 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis

3 in original). Here, because Younger applies and plaintiffs seek damages along with injunctive relief,

4 the Court stays the proceeding pending resolution of the state court action.4

5

6

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’

8 motion and STAYS plaintiffs’ claims pending the resolution of the state court action. The parties are

9 ordered to file joint reports on the status of the state court proceedings every 90 days until its

10 resolution.

11

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

14 Dated: October 22, 2007 15

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

4Defendants also move this Court to abstain based on Colorado River principles. Because the

28

Court must abstain under Younger, it does not reach the matter of whether to also abstain under Colorado River.

9

 
 CaseC3a:s0e73-:c0v7--0c3v6-02326-S2I2-SIDoDcuomcuemnte3n5t36 FFilieledd0190/2195/200808PagPea1goef 14 of 4

Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536)

MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

1

1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123

2

Tel:(415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 Attorneys For Plaintiffs

3
DENNIS J. HERRERA (SBN 139669)
4 City Attorney
ELIZABETH S. SALVERSON (SBN 83788) 5 Chief Labor Attorney
6 MARGARET BAUMGARDNER (SBN 151762) JILL FIGG DAYAL (SBN 168281)
7 RAFAL OFIERSKI (SBN 194798)
Deputy City Attorneys 8 Fax Plaza
9 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94102
10 Tel: (415) 554-3800 Fax: (415) 554-4248 Attorneys For Defendants
11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
MERCY AMBAT, et al,
16

No. CV 07-03622 SI

17

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STIPULATION FOR ORDER AND ORDER

18

PERMITTING CONSOLIDATION OF

19 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ACTIONS AND PERMITTING FILING OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

Defendants.

FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21 Also consolidated into this action is:

22
PAMELA WALKER, et al,
23

No. 3 CV 08-2406

Plaintiffs,
24
vs.
25
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
26

27

Defendants.

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 1
Stipulation For Order Consolidating Cases and Permitting Amended Complaint with All Claims

CaseC3a:s0e73-:c0v7--0c3v6-02326-S2I2-SIDoDcuomcuemnte3n5t36 FFilieledd0190/2195/200808PagPea2goef 24 of 4

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their respective counsel, that:

2

(a)

Plaintiffs represent there are additional San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs who have filed

3

claims of discrimination and retaliation with the United States Equal Employment

4

Opportunity Commission and who wish to be a part of one action, hence will seek

leave to add them at the appropriate time;
5

(b)

In a Case Management Conference, the Court has indicated a desire to secure all

6

parties in one complaint so that it would assist in the efficient operation of the court

7
and resolution of this matter;

8

(c)

Three actions have been filed for the claims of gender discrimination at the San

9

Francisco County Jail, (a) U.S. District Court Action Number CV 07-03622 SI

10

entitled Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco; U.S. District Court Action

11

Number 3 CV 08-2406 entitled Walker v. City and County of San Francisco; and

12

similar claims in the California Superior Court, San Francisco, in the case entitled

13

San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association, et al, v. The City and County of San

14

Francisco, Superior Court Number CPF-07-567047.

15

(d)

That on May 9, 2008, all remaining plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice all claims

in the case in California Superior Court, San Francisco, entitled San Francisco
16

Deputy Sheriff’s Association, et al, v. The City and County of San Francisco,
17

Superior Court Number CPF-07-567047, leaving only Ambat and Walker as the

18
remaining actions before the courts.

19

(e)

The parties agree with the Court that consolidating the Ambat action and the Walker

20

action would enhance the resolution of the issues at the core of this action to have all

21

of such issues resolved in one suit;

22

(f)

Because current law provides only the employer may be liable for discrimination and

23

retaliation, the First Amended and Consolidated Complaint does not name any

24

individual defendants and contains no claims against individual defendants.

25

Therefore, the pending motion in the Ambat case should be dismissed as moot and

26

removed from the court’s calendar.

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 2
Stipulation For Order Consolidating Cases and Permitting Amended Complaint with All Claims

CaseC3a:s0e73-:c0v7--0c3v6-02326-S2I2-SIDoDcuomcuemnte3n5t36 FFilieledd0190/2195/200808PagPea3goef 34 of 4

1

(g)

With both actions consolidated into one complaint, a copy of which is attached as

2

Exhibit A, the case is now set for hearings on Summary Judgment/ Adjudication and

3

further Case Management Conference.

4

(h)

The purpose of this stipulation is to permit the plaintiffs to file the First Amended and

Consolidated Complaint without resorting to a motion for leave to amend and or a
5

motion to consolidate. By entering into this Stipulation, the City does not waive its
6

rights to challenge the First Amended and Consolidated Complaint, or any portion

7
therefore, on any lawful ground at any proper time.

8

(i)

Based on the forgoing representations and stipulation, the parties respectfully request

9

that the Court issue an order consolidating the Ambat and Walker actions, authorizing

10

plaintiffs to file their First Amended and Consolidated Complaint, and dismissing as

11

moot the pending motion to dismiss the individual defendants in Ambat.

12

13 Date: September 29, 2008

14 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE

15

16
_/s/ Lawrence D. Murray _____ 17 Lawrence D. Murray 18 Attorney for Plaintiffs
19

/s/ Rafal Ofierski

___

Rafal Ofierski

Attorney for Defendants City and County of San

Francisco, et al.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 3
Stipulation For Order Consolidating Cases and Permitting Amended Complaint with All Claims

CaseC3a:s0e73-:c0v7--0c3v6-02326-S2I2-SIDoDcuomcuemnte3n5t36 FFilieledd0190/2195/200808PagPea4goef 4 of 4

1

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR ORDER

2

HAVING READ AND CONSIDERED THE FOREGOING, and good cause appearing:

3
The foregoing is the order of the court.
4
Date:
5

6

________________________________________

7

SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 4
Stipulation For Order Consolidating Cases and Permitting Amended Complaint with All Claims

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document292 Filed06/16/10 Page1 of 1

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

5 MERCY AMBAT,

6

Plaintiff,

7 v.

No. C 07-03622 SI consolidated with 08-2406 SI
ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON SETTLEMENT

8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

9

Defendant.

/

10

11

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed

12 to a settlement.

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, that

14 if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

15 within ninety days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order

16 shall be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings.

17

18 Dated: 19

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document67 Filed11/24/08 Page1 of 6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 MERCY AMBAT, et al.

No. C 07-03622 SI

9 10 v.

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

12

Defendants.

/

13

14

On November 21, 2008, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for summary

15 judgment and defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion. Having considered the arguments of

16 the parties and the papers submitted, and for good cause shown, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED and

17 defendants’ motion is moot.

18

19

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiffs are San Francisco sheriff’s deputies. They allege that the San Francisco Sheriff’s

21 Department is engaging in discriminatory employment practices. Plaintiffs have brought nine causes

22 of action, alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”);

23 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900 et seq. (“FEHA”); the

24 California “Whistleblower” Statute, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1102.5(b); and the California Peace Officers’

25 Bill of Rights, Cal. Gov. Code § 3309.5. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Docket No. 37]

26

It is undisputed that in October of 2006, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department instituted a

27 policy requiring that only female custodial personnel be assigned to female housing units in San

28 Francisco jails. County Jail Number 8 (“CJ8”) contains various “pods,” some of which house male

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document67 Filed11/24/08 Page2 of 6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 inmates, and some of which house females. Pursuant to the October 2006 policy, only female guards

2 staff the female pods, and only male guards staff the male pods.

3

Plaintiffs are male and female deputies, all of whom allege that they have suffered employment

4 discrimination due to defendants’ gender-based staffing policy. The female plaintiffs allege that they

5 are placed at risk of harm while working in the female-only pods because female inmates are dangerous

6 and difficult to supervise, and because the female pods are inadequately staffed. The male plaintiffs

7 allege that they have suffered employment discrimination because defendants have refused to consider

8 them for positions in the female-only pods and has assigned shifts and days off according to gender,

9 rather than by seniority.

10

Neither party has conducted discovery in this matter. At a case management conference on

11 August 29, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiffs wish to move for early summary judgment

12 on the purely legal issue of whether assigning only female guards to the pods that house female inmates

13 constitutes a facial violation of California Penal Code § 4021.

14

On October 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.1 On the same day, plaintiffs

15 moved for summary judgment on their first, second, third, fourth and seventh causes of action.2 In

16 support of their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs submitted thirteen declarations regarding

17 disputed facts in this case. Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motion and also move to dismiss plaintiffs’

18 motion as premature under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

19

20

LEGAL STANDARD

21

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

22 admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any 23 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24

25

1 The FAC names only the City and County of San Francisco as defendant. It therefore moots

defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the individual defendants. [Docket No. 30] 26

2 The causes of action are for: (1) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII, (2) gender 27 discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) discriminatory employment restrictions in violation of Title

28

VII, (4) advertisement of gender discrimination in violation of FEHA, and (7) failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation in violation of FEHA.

2

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document67 Filed11/24/08 Page3 of 6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of

2 material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party, however, has

3 no burden to negate or disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof

4 at trial. The moving party need only demonstrate to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to

5 support the non-moving party’s case. See id. at 325.

6

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to “designate ‘specific facts showing that there

7 is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). To carry this burden, the non-

8 moving party must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material

9 facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “The mere

10 existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury

11 could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252

12 (1986).

13

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to

14 the non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255. “Credibility

15 determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts

16 are jury functions, not those of a judge [when she] is ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Id.

17 The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conclusory,

18 speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and

19 defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

20

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), upon a showing by the party opposing a

21 motion for summary judgment that it “cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to

22 justify the party’s opposition,” the court may deny or continue the motion for summary judgment in

23 order to permit that party an opportunity to obtain necessary discovery. A Rule 56(f) motion should be 24 granted “fairly freely” where “a summary judgment motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a 25 party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case.” Burlington 26 Northern Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 27 (9th Cir. 2003). 28

3

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document67 Filed11/24/08 Page4 of 6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

DISCUSSION

2 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

3

Defendants argue that the Court must dismiss plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion because

4 defendants have had no opportunity to defend their case. They argue that plaintiffs’ motion, which is

5 supported by thirteen declarations on disputed factual issues, is improper in light of counsel’s

6 representation that plaintiffs intended to move for summary judgment on a purely legal issue.

7 Defendants state that they are unable to defend against plaintiffs’ factual allegations because they have

8 not had the opportunity to depose any of plaintiffs’ declarants or otherwise investigate the factual

9 allegations plaintiffs assert.

10

The Court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs cannot move for summary judgment on their

11 FEHA and Title VII claims, all of which involve factual allegations, before defendants have even

12 answered plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court’s sole inquiry at this stage in the

13 proceeding will be whether the department’s October, 2006 policy of assigning only female guards to

14 staff female pods in CJ8 violates California Penal Code § 4021 as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion

15 to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is moot.

16

17 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

18

Plaintiffs argue that the October 2006 policy constitutes a facial violation of California Penal

19 Code § 4021. Section 4021 states, in relevant part:

20

(a) Whenever any female prisoner or prisoners are confined in any local detention

facility in the state there shall be an appropriately trained female custodial person

21

assigned, available, and accessible for the supervision of the female prisoners.

22

(b) It shall be unlawful for any officer, station officer, jailer, or custodial personnel to

search the person of any prisoner of the opposite sex, or to enter into the room or cell

23

occupied by any prisoner of the opposite sex, except in the company of an employee of

the same sex as the prisoner. Except as provided herein, the provisions of this

24

subdivision shall not be applied to discriminate against any employee by prohibiting

appointment or work assignment on the basis of the sex of the employee. 25

Cal. Pen. Code § 4021. According to plaintiffs, § 4021 prohibits all gender-based distinctions in 26

appointment or work assignment, with two narrow exceptions: one female guard must be available 27

wherever females are detained, and a guard of the prisoner’s sex must be present when a prisoner’s 28

4

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document67 Filed11/24/08 Page5 of 6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 person or cell is searched. Plaintiffs argue that the department’s policy of placing only female guards

2 with female prisoners in CJ8 does not fit within either exception and is therefore prohibited.

3

Defendants read § 4021 as a mandate for the sheriff’s department to staff facilities where female

4 prisoners are confined with at least one female prison officer and to permit body and cell searches only

5 when an officer of the prisoner’s sex is present. Depending on the circumstances, defendants argue,

6 single-sex staffing may necessary in order for the department to comply with § 4021. The prohibition

7 against “discrimination” in § 4021(b) is in fact a prohibition on invidious discrimination; courts must

8 conduct a fact-based assessment to determine whether the policy constitutes such discrimination.

9

The Court agrees with defendants that the prohibition in § 4021(b) is limited: “the provisions

10 of this subdivision shall not be applied to discriminate against any employee by prohibiting appointment

11 or work assignment on the basis of the sex of the employee.” This language is not a blanket prohibition

12 on all gender-based distinctions. The provision merely prevents an employer from relying on this

13 provision to discriminate against an employee.3 In other words, an employer may not cite the explicitly

14 gender-based requirements of § 4021(a) and (b) and claim that these provisions warrant invidious

15 discrimination.

16

This interpretation has limited relevance at this stage of the proceeding because defendants have

17 not yet had an opportunity to make their case and therefore have not attempted to rely on § 4021. If they

18 do invoke § 4021, the issue of whether the October 2006 policy is a prohibited form of discrimination

19 is a question for another day; the current record is not sufficiently developed to allow the Court to

20 address the merits of plaintiffs’ summary judgment arguments on their FEHA and Title VII claims.

21

22

23

24

25 /// 26

27 3 Plaintiffs’ argument that “discrimination” in § 4021(b) prohibits all gender-based distinctions
28 would be more appropriate if the statute prohibited discriminating among employees.

5

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document67 Filed11/24/08 Page6 of 6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

3 is DENIED without prejudice to consideration on a fully developed factual record.. Defendant’s motion

4 to dismiss the motion for summary judgment is moot.

5

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 Dated: 11/21/08 9

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document94 Filed06/16/09 Page1 of 2

1 Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
2 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123
3 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084
4
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9
MERCY AMBAT, ZAINABU ANDERSON, 10 JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, SHARON
CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY, TEQUISHA 11 CURLEY, ALISA DAVIS-ZEHNER, MARLA
DENZER, , PATTI FLYNN, TERESA FOX, JON
12
GRAY, TORI JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN, 13 MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD LEE, SANDRA
MACLIN-GIBSON, SUKHWANT MANN, 14 GLORIA MARTIN, ARTURO MEDRANO, 15 MARC NUTI, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY
PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, WENDY 16 RODGERS-WELLS, LANA SLOCUM, ERNEST
SMITH, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, 17 MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, KENNETH TAN, 18 ANJIE VERSHER, BONNIE WESTLIN,
YVETTE WILLIAMS, ROLAND ZANIE, and 19 MICHAEL ZEHNER,

20
Plaintiffs,

21

vs.

No. CV 07-03622 SI NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

22 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
THOMAS ARATA, STEPHEN TILTON,
23
RODERICK WALLACE, JOHN MINOR,
24 EDWARD RUPPENSTEIN, JOANNA PECOT,

25
26
///
27
///
28

Defendants.

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 1 Notice of Related Case

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document94 Filed06/16/09 Page2 of 2

1

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD:

2

Please take notice that this action is related to a pending action in this court, specifically Ortega

3 vs. City and County of San Francisco, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case

4 No. CV 09-2652 MMC, filed June 15, 2009. Both of these actions involve the same defendant and
involve the same circumstances giving rise to each lawsuit.
5
Respectfully submitted,
6
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
7

8
DATED: June 16, 2009
9
10

/s/________________________________ LAWRENCE D. MURRAY Attorney for Plaintiffs

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 2 Notice of Related Case

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document300 Filed07/09/10 Page1 of 1

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 MERCY AMBAT, et al.,

No. C 07-03622 SI

9

Plaintiffs,

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

10 v.

11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

12

Defendant.

/

13

14

Plaintiffs have requested that the Court reconsider its decision granting summary judgment in

15 defendant’s favor in view of the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Breiner v. Nevada Department of

16 Corrections, No. 09-15568, slip op. (9th Cir. July 8, 2010). The Court agrees that supplemental briefing

17 on the impact of the Breiner decision upon the summary judgment ruling in this case is appropriate.

18 Accordingly, the parties are hereby directed to submit briefing regarding the effect of the Breiner

19 decision according to the following schedule:

20

Plaintiffs’ brief: July 21, 2010

21

Defendant’s brief: July 28, 2010

22

The Court will take the matter under submission upon completion of the briefing schedule and

23 will set a hearing if necessary.

24

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: July 9, 2010 27

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

28

 
 1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 MERCY AMBAT, et al.

No. C 07-03622 SI

9 10 v.

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: PARTIES’ BILLS OF COSTS

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

12

Defendant.

/

13

14

Plaintiffs and defendant in this action have filed separate bills of costs. In their bill of costs,

15 plaintiffs seek to recover a total of $4,811.84, consisting of (1) $1,050.00 in Complaint Filing Fees, and

16 (2) $3,761.84 in “Fees of the court reporter (transcripts, depositions).” In its amended bill of costs,

17 defendant seeks to recover a total of $51,849.07, consisting of (1) $3,270.54 in fees for service of

18 summonses and subpoenas, (2) $35,471.06 in “Fees of the court reporter (transcripts, depositions)” and

19 (3) $13,107.47 in “Other costs - Document reproduction.” Docs. 322 and 358.

20

Both side has filed objections to the other’s bills of costs. The Court herein addresses those

21 objections.

22

23

BACKGROUND

24

These consolidated cases involved challenges by approximately thirty sheriff’s deputies to a

25 gender-based staffing policy of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. In mid-2006, the Sheriff

26 reorganized inmate housing in the San Francisco jails such that all female inmates were placed in

27 County Jail #8 in female-only housing units, or “pods.” Thereafter, in October 2006, the Sheriff

28 implemented a policy requiring that only female deputies be assigned to staff these female pods.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Plaintiffs in this case were both male and female sheriff’s deputies who alleged that the Sheriff’s staffing

2 policy (“the Policy”) amounts to employment discrimination. Additionally, several of the plaintiffs

3 brought retaliation claims against defendant. The Court granted defendant summary judgment on almost

4 all of plaintiffs’ claims.

5

The Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on retaliation claims brought by

6 three plaintiffs: Lisa Janssen, Mattie Spires-Morgan, and Anjie Versher (“plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs

7 contended that defendant retaliated against them by reprimanding them for complaining that the Policy

8 constituted gender discrimination and for participating in this lawsuit. They pointed to written

9 reprimands, negative performance evaluations, “written counseling,” and other conduct that they argued

10 was retaliatory.

11

A day after the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ retaliation

12 claims, and approximately three weeks before trial was scheduled to begin, the parties agreed to

13 continue the trial date in order to enter into settlement negotiations on the remaining claims. A

14 settlement conference was held with Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on June 8 and June 10,

15 2010, and everyone agreed that the parties had settled the case. The agreement was read into the record.

16 The Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice upon settlement. Doc. 292.

17

On May 27, 2011, the Court heard argument on competing motions filed by the parties: a

18 motion for entry of judgment filed by plaintiffs, and a motion to enforce the settlement agreement filed

19 by defendant. The parties agreed that they reached a settlement on plaintiffs’ retaliation claims, and that

20 the settlement agreement was memorialized on the record before Magistrate Judge James on June 10,

21 2010. They disagreed over the terms of the settlement, and the procedure by which it should be reduced

22 to writing.

23

The Court granted each motion in part and denied each motion in part. Doc. 315. The Court

24 found that the parties had a clear intent to execute a written settlement agreement. The Court granted

25 plaintiffs’ request that it enter judgment, but only after the parties signed a written settlement agreement.

26 The Court denied plaintiffs’ request to include the remaining terms of the settlement agreement in the

27 Judgment, with the exception that the Judgement would indicate where Magistrate Judge James retained

28 jurisdiction over certain, limited matters. The Court granted defendant’s requests that the parties be

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 ordered to execute a written settlement agreement, with the caveat that if the parties could not agree to

2 the form of the agreement within ten days, they would be required to sign a copy of the transcript to

3 indicate their approval of the oral settlement.

4

The Court declined to order that the parties include in a written agreement any terms that were

5 not agreed to on the record before Magistrate Judge James. For example, defendant had requested that

6 the Court find that the parties entered into a “no fault” settlement agreement whereby each side would

7 bear its own attorney’s fees and costs as to the settled retaliation claims. The Court declined to do so,

8 explaining that the language in the release contained in the oral settlement agreement was neither so

9 clear nor so broad that the Court could find that plaintiffs waived their right to move for attorney’s fees,

10 and that there was not sufficient outside evidence to support such a finding. The Court reserved the

11 question of whether plaintiffs were the prevailing party on the retaliation claims, as it was not squarely

12 presented in the motions.

13

Plaintiffs thereafter moved for attorney’s fees in the amount of $127,447.26. In its September

14 2, 2011 Order, the Court found that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party, as

15 they had achieved a material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties and that the

16 alteration was judicially sanctioned. Doc. 347. However, as plaintiffs only partially prevailed, the

17 Court reduced the fee award to $8,925.

18

Following entry of judgment, both parties filed bills of costs, as well as objections to each other’s

19 bills of costs. On December 14, 2011, defendants filed an amended bill of costs.

20

21

LEGAL STANDARD

22

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 authorizes a judge or clerk of the district court to tax costs. Pursuant to

23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs incurred by the prevailing party may be assessed against

24 the losing party and may be taxed by the clerk. “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order

25 provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.

26 R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “Rule 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties,

27 and it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded.” Stanley

28 v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Taxable costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 as follows:

2

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded

transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for

3

printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of

any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket

4

fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts,

compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special

5

interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

6 Civil Local Rule 54-3 provides additional “standards for interpreting the costs allowed under section

7 1920.” Intermedics v. Ventritex, Co., No. C-90-20233, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17803, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

8 Dec. 2, 1993). The taxation of costs lies within the trial court’s discretion. In re Media Vision Tech.

9 Secs. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1366 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

10

According to Civil Local Rule 54-1(a), a bill of costs “must state separately and specifically each

11 item of taxable costs claimed.” Civ. L.R. 54-1(a). Further, a party seeking costs must provide an

12 affidavit stating that the costs were “necessarily incurred, and are allowable by law” and “[a]ppropriate

13 documentation to support each item claimed.” Id. With regard to individual itemized costs, “the burden

14 is on the party seeking costs . . . to establish the amount of compensable costs and expenses to which

15 it is entitled.” Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2002).

16

17

DISCUSSION

18 1. Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs

19

In their bill of costs, plaintiffs seek to recover a total of $4,811.84, consisting of (1) $1,050.00

20 in Complaint Filing Fees, and (2) $3,761.84 in “Fees of the court reporter (transcripts, depositions).”

21 Defendant objects to plaintiffs’ bill of costs on a number of grounds. Defendant argues that (1) plaintiffs

22 are not the prevailing party; (2) even if plaintiffs did prevail on some issues, defendant prevailed on a

23 greater number of issues and thus plaintiffs are precluded from recovering costs; and (3) even if

24 plaintiffs are entitled to some costs, their costs should be reduced based on the level of their victory.

25

Defendant’s prevailing party objection, which was filed prior to the Court’s September 2, 2011

26 Order Granting Motion for Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Fees, is foreclosed by that Order. Doc. 347. The

27 Court has determined that plaintiffs achieved a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties,

28 and that alteration was judicially sanctioned, thus rendering plaintiffs a prevailing party.

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendant’s second argument is that only one party can be deemed “prevailing” for the purpose

2 of taxing costs, and that because defendant won on the majority of plaintiffs’ claims, only defendant is

3 entitled to that status. Defendant cites foreign authority for the proposition that only one party can be

4 prevailing for purposes of costs, but no Ninth Circuit precedent. Def.’s Objs. at 8 (citing Shum v. Intel

5 Corp., 629 F.3d 1360, 1366-68 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that because Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 refers to “the

6 prevailing party . . . there can only be one prevailing party in a given case.”)). The Court disagrees with

7 defendant, and finds that multiple parties may be entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. For the

8 purpose of attorney’s fees under a number of statutory schemes, including Title VII, prevailing party

9 status may be granted to plaintiffs even where they lose on the bulk of their claims. See Manhart v. City

10 of Los Angeles, Dept. of Water and Power, 652 F.2d 904, 906-7 (9th Cir. 1981) (in Title VII case,

11 prevailing on any “significant issue” sufficient for prevailing party status); Park v. Anaheim Union High

12 School Dist., 464 F.3d 1025, 1026 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] prevailing party need not prevail on what may

13 be considered the ‘central’ issue of the case . . . as long as the party had prevailed on any significant

14 issue” prevailing status is warranted.). The Court in this case found plaintiffs to be a prevailing party

15 despite losing on the vast majority of their claims. See Doc. 347. It would be incongruous to grant

16 prevailing party status for the purpose of attorney’s fees but to revoke it for the purpose of costs.

17 Instead, the Court finds the more appropriate method to employ with respect to costs in this “mixed

18 judgment” case is to follow the same procedures used for attorney’s fees. That is, “when the plaintiff

19 has prevailed on some, but not all his claims . . . ‘the district court must reduce the attorneys fee award

20 so that it is commensurate with the extent of the plaintiff’s success.’” McCown v. City of Fontana, 565

21 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting McGinnis v. Ky. Friend Chicken, 51 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir.

22 1994)).

23

First, plaintiffs request $1,050.00 in complaint filing fees for the $350.00 filing fee paid in each

24 of CV 07-3622, 08-2406, and 09-2652. Defendant objects on the grounds that plaintiffs do not provide

25 supporting documentation pursuant to Local Rule 54-1(a). (“Appropriate documentation to support each

26 item claimed must be attached to the bill of costs.”). While supporting documentation is needed for any

27 other item claimed, there is no question that plaintiffs were required to pay the $350.00 Complaint Filing

28 Fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Plaintiffs were not granted in forma pauperis status allowing them

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 to avoid the fees. Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED.

2

Plaintiffs also request $3,761.84 in “Fees of the court reporter (transcripts, depositions).” This

3 includes the entire cost of the depositions of the three plaintiffs whose claims survived summary

4 judgment and who eventually settled: Lisa Janssen ($659.80), Mattie Spires-Morgan ($826.80), and

5 Anjie Versher ($703.20). Plaintiffs also request a prorated portion of the deposition costs for many

6 other deponents, which they term “apportioned” work ($1,351.46) or “general” work ($220.68). In the

7 Order Granting Attorney’s Fees, the Court noted that this case was primarily about gender

8 discrimination, and that no plaintiff prevailed on a discrimination claim. As with the attorneys’ fees,

9 and as noted above, the Court will not order defendant to pay costs for work related in whole or in large

10 part to the losing discrimination claims. Therefore, the Court will not award plaintiffs costs for the

11 “apportioned” or “general” work. The Court therefore SUSTAINS defendants’ objections to those costs.

12 The Court will award costs related to deposing the three prevailing plaintiffs.

13

The Court therefore awards $1,050.00 in filing fees and $2,189.80 in court reporter fees to

14 plaintiffs, for a total of $3,239.80.

15

16 2. Defendant’s Bill of Costs

17

In its amended bill of costs, defendant seeks to recover a total of $51,849.07, consisting of (1)

18 $3,270.54 in fees for service of summonses and subpoenas, (2) $35,471.06 in court reporter fees and

19 (3) $13,107.47 in “Other costs - Document reproduction.” Plaintiffs object on a number of grounds,

20 including that (1) defendant did not have authority to file an amended bill of costs, and (2) defendants

21 cannot recover for costs that were “reasonable and necessary for the claims of the successful plaintiffs.”

22

Plaintiffs’ object that defendant did not have authority to file an amended bill of costs. Local

23 Rule 54-1 allows a party to file a bill of costs no later than 14 days after judgment is entered. L.R. 54-

24 1(a). Judgment was entered in this case on June 21, 2011. Defendant timely filed its bill of costs on

25 July 1, 2011, requesting $56,016.93. On December 14, 2011, defendant filed an amended bill of costs,

26 seeking $51,849.07. Because the amended bill of costs is a significant reduction from the original, the

27 Court finds that an amended bill of costs is permissible. Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.

28

Plaintiffs object to the $3,270.54 in “Fees for service of summonses and subpoenas” because

6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 “the claimed costs include costs for items and services other than the Clerk’s filing fee and service of

2 process fees.” Pl.’s Objs. at 2. Plaintiffs argue that invoices that do not specifically identify the

3 recoverable costs cannot be considered. Local Rule 54-3(a)(2) allows recovery of fees for service of

4 process by someone other than the marshal to the extent reasonably required and actually incurred. The

5 invoices for subpoenas and service of process provided by defendants dated prior to May 1, 2009

6 contain itemized charges, a number of which are unrecoverable. However, defendants are requesting

7 only the $25 “Personal Service” fee and the $15.00 “Witness Fee,” both of which the Court finds are

8 recoverable. The invoices (from the same company) dated after May 1, 2009 are not so itemized, and

9 instead list a $39.00 “File Basic” fee, a $15.00 “Witness Fee,” and small charges for “Check Charge”

10 and “Copies.” Defendant’s attorney states that these invoices reflect a negotiated reduction in costs of

11 17%, and therefore are requesting only $35.74 total for each invoice. See Lach Decl., ¶¶ 4-5. The Court

12 finds that this is also a sufficiently documented and recoverable fee. The Court OVERRULES

13 plaintiffs’ objection with respect to the fees incurred for service of process. The Court awards defendant

14 $3,270.54 for these costs.

15

Plaintiffs object to the $35,471.06 in court reporter fees on the grounds that plaintiffs were

16 successful on some of their claims, and thus the depositions “reasonable and necessary for the claims

17 of the successful” plaintiffs should be stricken. As noted above, however, plaintiffs lost on the vast

18 majority of their claims. Specifically, plaintiffs lost on their gender discrimination claims, though

19 gender discrimination was the gravamen of their complaint. The fifty-six depositions for which

20 defendant seeks fees were necessary in order for it to defend against those claims. In recognition of

21 plaintiffs’ small victory, as discussed above, the Court will subtract from defendants’ request the costs

22 incurred by defendants in deposing the three plaintiffs that prevailed: Mattie Spires-Morgan ($1,440.00),

23 Anjie Versher ($954.95), and Lisa Janssen ($1,123.40). The Court otherwise finds the costs for the

24 depositions are recoverable. The Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART plaintiffs’

25 objection. The Court awards defendants $31,952.71 in deposition fees.

26

Plaintiffs also object to the $13,107.47 in “Other Costs” requested by defendants because the

27 invoices “clearly include fees for services other than reproducing discovery documents.” Pls.’ Objs. at

28 4. The Court has reviewed the invoices, and disagrees. The costs incurred are either for directly

7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 reproducing the documents, or necessary services ancillary to reproduction, such as scanning, stapling,

2 or optical character recognition. See Def.’s Bill of Costs, Ex. C. Plaintiffs objection to “Other Costs”

3 is OVERRULED, and $13,107.47 is awarded to defendants.

4

The Court therefore awards $3,270.54 in service fees, $31,952.71 in deposition fees, and

5 $13,107.47 in other fees to defendant, for a total of $48,330.72.

6

7

CONCLUSION

8

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby awards plaintiffs

9 $3,239.80 in costs and defendant $48,330.72 in costs.

10

11

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

14 Dated: July 5, 2012 15

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 
 Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document295 Filed06/17/10 Page1 of 6

1 Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) Robert Strickland (SBN 243757)
2 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 3 1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123 4 Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
5
6 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11
MERCY AMBAT, ZAINABU ANDERSON, 12 JOHN ARITA, DENNIS CARTER, SHARON
CASTILLO, JOANNA CROTTY, TEQUISHA 13 CURLEY, ALISA DAVIS-ZEHNER, MARLA
14 DENZER, PATTI FLYNN, TERESA FOX, JON GRAY, TORI JACKSON, LISA JANSSEN,
15 MICHAEL JONES, RICHARD LEE, SANDRA
MACLIN-GIBSON, SUKHWANT MANN,
16
GLORIA MARTIN, ARTURO MEDRANO,
17 MARC NUTI, KEVIN O’SHEA, ANTHONY PEPPERS, VINCENT QUOCK, WENDY
18 RODGERS-WELLS, LANA SLOCUM, ERNEST
19 SMITH, TONYETTE SMITH-AL GHANI, MATTIE SPIRES-MORGAN, KENNETH TAN,
20 ANJIE VERSHER, BONNIE WESTLIN, YVETTE WILLIAMS, ROLAND ZANIE,
21 MICHAEL ZEHNER, PAMELA WALKER,
22 GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO, FELISHA THOMAS, JENNIFER KEETON, OLGA
23 KINCADE, EMIKO THEODORIDIS, JEREMY
DEJESUS, and MARTHA ORTEGA
24

25

Plaintiffs,

vs.

26

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
27

28

Defendant.

Case No. C-07-3622 SI (Consolidated with Case Numbers C-08-2406 SI & C-09-2652 SI)
[proposed] FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 1
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document295 Filed06/17/10 Page2 of 6

1

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter (referred to as the Ambat matter) on July 13, 2007,

2 based on nine causes of action, specifically, (1) Gender Discrimination under Title VII (Federal Claim);

3 (2) Gender Discrimination, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (3)
4 Gender Employment Restriction under Title VII (Federal Claim); (4) Gender Employment Restriction
under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (5) Retaliation for Protected Activity
5
under Title VII (Federal Claim); (6) Retaliation for Protected Activity under the Fair Employment and
6
Housing Act (California Claim); (7) Failure To Prevent Violation under the Fair Employment and
7
Housing Act (California Claim); (8) Retaliation under California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq; (9) 8 Retaliation under Peace Officer Bill of Rights (Govt § 3309.5) The Complaint was filed on behalf of
9 numerous plaintiffs, many of whom dropped out of the action prior to completion of discovery. The

10 action was stayed on October 23, 2007, pending completion of a similar suit in San Francisco Superior

11 Court. That stay was lifted and this matter proceeded on or about June 19, 2008.

12

Thereafter a second matter with similar, if not identical, claims was filed arising out of the same core

13 circumstances, that is the elimination of male deputy sheriff’s from working in the female jails.
14 Plaintiffs filed the second action by way of Complaint in the companion matter (referred to as the
Walker matter) on May 9, 2008, comprised of the claims of eight (8) plaintiffs. Thereafter on or about
15
October 15, 2008, this court ordered the consolidation of the Walker matter with the Ambat matter.
16
Thereafter a third matter with similar, if not identical, claims was filed arising out of the same core
17
circumstances, that is the elimination of male deputy sheriff’s from working in the female jails. Plaintiff 18 Ortega filed the third action by way of Complaint in the companion matter (referred to as the Ortega
19 matter) on June 15, 2009. Thereafter on or about September 21, 2009, this court ordered the

20 consolidation of the Ortega matter with the Ambat matter.

21 Thereafter, on or about October 22, 2009, pursuant to order of the court, plaintiffs in all three cases

22 who remained caused to file with the Court a revised Third Amended Complaint consolidating all of the

23 claims in these three actions. The plaintiffs claims asserted were: (1) Gender Discrimination under
24 Title VII (Federal Claim); (2) Gender Discrimination, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(California Claim); (3) Gender Employment Restriction under Title VII (Federal Claim); (4) Gender
25
Employment Restriction under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (5)
26
Retaliation for Protected Activity under Title VII (Federal Claim) for Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires,
27
Anderson, Gray, and Versher; (6) Retaliation for Protected Activity under the Fair Employment and
28 Housing Act (California Claim) for Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires, Anderson, Gray, and Versher;

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 2
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document295 Filed06/17/10 Page3 of 6

1 (7) Failure To Prevent Violation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (8)

2 California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq for Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires; (9) Peace Officer Bill of

3 Rights (Govt § 3309.5) for Plaintiff Versher.

4

Thereafter, on October 22, 2009, the Defendant City and County of San Francisco, filed their

Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, as revised, asserting numerous affirmative defenses,
5
including that the elimination of males working in the female jails (referred to on occasions as “PODS”)
6
is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. (21st Affirmative Defense)
7
On January 8, 2010, Defendant City and County of San Francisco filed its Motion for Summary
8 Judgment and or Adjudication regarding all of plaintiff’s claims. On January 11, 2010, Plaintiff Jon

9 Gray filed his motion for Summary Judgment and or Adjudication. The matter came on for hearing on

10 February 12, 2010.

11

On February 17, 2010, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff Jon Grays’ summary

12 judgment motions and granting the majority of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically,

13 the court granted the Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s Motion for Summary Judgment as
14 to all plaintiffs on the claims as follows: (1) Gender Discrimination under Title VII (Federal Claim); (2)
Gender Discrimination, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (3) Gender
15
Employment Restriction under Title VII (Federal Claim); (4) Gender Employment Restriction under the
16
Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (5) Retaliation for Protected Activity under Title
17
VII (Federal Claim) save and except for claims by Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires, and Versher; (6) 18 Retaliation for Protected Activity under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim) save
19 and except for claims by Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires, and Versher; (7) Failure To Prevent

20 Violation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (8) Retaliation under

21 California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq save and except for claims by Plaintiffs Janssen, Morgan-Spires;

22 (9) Retaliation under Peace Officer Bill of Rights (Govt § 3309.5) save and except for claims by

23 Plaintiff Versher.

24

On March 15, 2010, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part the Defendant

City and County of San Francisco’s Motion for Summary Judgment and or Adjudication as to the
25

individual claims of Plaintiff Lisa Janssen, Angie Versher and Matty Morgan-Spires, with claims for
26
retaliation available to each.

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 3
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document295 Filed06/17/10 Page4 of 6

1

Thereafter the matter was set for trial on June 28, 2010. Pursuant to the order of the Court for

2 the parties to attend Settlement Conference, said conference was held on June 9, 2010, and the parties

3 stipulated to resolve the remaining claims by way of stipulated order and judgment as follows:

4

(a) Defendant City will recredit Plaintiff Deputy Spires-Morgan up to 10 days of sick leave

to the extent that sick leave was used due to her feelings of retaliation and or harassment arising out of
5
the remaining events that are at issue in this case.
6
(b) Defendant City will recredit Plaintiff Deputy Janssen up to five days of sick leave to the
7
extent that sick leave was used due to her feelings of retaliation and or harassment arising out of the
8 remaining events that are at issue in this case.

9

(c) Plaintiffs Spires-Morgan and Janssen will submit there request to Faye Horn of the

10 Sheriff’s Department. If the deputy and the Sheriff’s Department can not agree on the amount of sick

11 leave time recredit, the matter will be submitted to this Court. Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James, or

12 in her absence, any other judicial officer, will retain jurisdiction to make any further orders and

13 determination of the claims to recredit such sick leave if the parties can't agree on which days those

14 would be and whether they were, in fact, associated with these particular events. A ruling by the court

on what, if any, of those claims for sick leave days would be recredited will be final and binding and
15
would be subject to no further appeal upon ruling by Judge James or other judicial officer. The
16
disagreement shall be presented to the court without further notice, and without necessarily new filings
17
or pleadings in order to permit expeditious review and resolution.

18

(d) The Defendant City will revise its previously published list and policy listing places for

19 which an employee can complain regarding harassment, retaliation and whistleblowing. The current

20 policy permits complaints through the chain of command or to the current “harassment” deputy or

21 sergeant. Defendant City will add to the list for employees to complaint(s) relating to protected

22 classifications, whistleblowing or similar claims, and to and seek resolution of such claims permitting

23 the employee(s) to present complaints outside the chain of command the following, (1) to any
24 supervisor, (2) the Assistant Sheriff, (3) The Undersheriff and or (4) the Sheriff for the City and County
of San Francisco.
25
(e) The Defendant City will prepare and publish a new list and statement permitting
26
complaints outside the chain of command for an employee to be distributed to each Sheriff’s
27
Department employee, specifically (1) his revised policy list will be distributed along with the Sheriff’s
28 Department policies on discrimination and harassment based on all protected classifications, (2)

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 4
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document295 Filed06/17/10 Page5 of 6

1 policies on discrimination and harassment complaints outside the Sheriff’s department, including to the

2 Department of Human Resources for the City and County of San Francisc, the Department of Fair

3 Employment and Housing of the State of California, and the United States Equal Opportunity

4 Commission, and (3) the Whistleblower policies – to all supervisors in their twice yearly training and

will also
5
distribute that same packet to all employees during advanced officer training, which is yearly training,
6
for a period of at least three years in order to educate its employees in that particular manner. In
7
addition each of these stated policies will be posted at each facility in a conspicuous location and
8 manner for all employees to read.

9

(f) The Defendant City will also work with the plaintiffs to determine which pieces of paper

10 exist in their personnel files related to the events, the retaliatory events that are at issue, remaining at

11 issue, and to remove those from the personnel files, to place them under seal and to agree not

12 to use them in the future for any decisions related to promotion, transfer or discipline.

13

(f) Plaintiffs Versher, Spires-Morgan and Janssen will review their personal file with Faye

14 Horn of the Sheriff’s Department. If the deputy and the Sheriff’s Department can not agree on the

document(s) which should be removed pursuant to this order, this matter will be submitted to this court.
15
Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James, or in her absence, any other judicial officer, will retain jurisdiction
16
to make any further orders and determination of the documents to be removed and not considered for
17
any future promotion, transfer or discipline if the parties can't agree. The parties will return to the court

18 for further order on this issue. A ruling by the court on what, if any, document(s) shall be removed,

19 would be subject to no further appeal upon ruling by Judge James or other judicial officer and shall be

20 presented to the court without further notice, and without necessarily new filings or pleadings in order to

21 permit expeditious review and resolution.

22

(g) By this stipulation, Plaintiffs’ Versher, Morgan-Spires and Janssen each settle and

23 relinquish all claims for retaliation, as set forth in their claims under (5) Retaliation for Protected
24 Activity under Title VII (Federal Claim); (6) Retaliation for Protected Activity under the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (7) Failure To Prevent Violation under the Fair
25
Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (8) California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq; (9) Peace
26
Officer Bill of Rights (Govt § 3309.5).
27
////
28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 5
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Case3:07-cv-03622-SI Document295 Filed06/17/10 Page6 of 6

1

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT JUDGMENT

2 SHALL ENTER AS FOLLOWS:

3

(a) As to the Claims asserted by way of the revised Third Amended Complaint, by all plaintiffs for

4

the claims (1) Gender Discrimination under Title VII (Federal Claim); (2) Gender

Discrimination, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (3) Gender
5

Employment Restriction under Title VII (Federal Claim); (4) Gender Employment Restriction
6
under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); and upon the Defendant City’s

7
defense of Boni Fide Occupational Qualification, judgment shall enter in favor of the Defendant

8

City and against the plaintiffs.

9

(b) As to the Claims asserted by way of the revised Third Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs’

10

Versher, Morgan-Spires and Janssen for claims for retaliation, as set forth in their claims under

11

(5) Retaliation for Protected Activity under Title VII (Federal Claim); (6) Retaliation for

12

Protected Activity under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (7) Failure

13

To Prevent Violation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Claim); (8)

14

California Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq; (9) Peace Officer Bill of Rights (Govt § 3309.5),

judgment shall enter in favor of Plaintiff Versher, Morgan-Spires and Janssen and against the
15
Defendant City.
16

17
Date:
18
19

______________________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Court Judge

20 APPROVED AS CONFORMING TO THE ORDERS OF THE COURT
21 AND THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES:

22
23 ___________________________________ Margaret Baumgartner
24 Deputy City Attorney City and County of San Francisco
25

26

27

28

Ambat et al. v. CCSF et al.; United States District Court, Northern District of Calif. Case No. C 07-3622 SI Page 6
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 1 of 62
ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSOL,E−Filing,REFSET−MEJ,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−03622−SI

Ambat et al v. City & County of San Francisco et al Assigned to: Hon. Susan Illston Referred to: Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James (Settlement) Demand: $0 Case in other court: USCA, 11−16746
USCA, 11−17330 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/13/2007 Date Terminated: 01/21/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mercy Ambat TERMINATED: 02/17/2009

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray Murray & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 415−673−0555 Fax: 415−928−4084 Email: daydrmn@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter Attorney at Law Murray & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 415−673−0555 Fax: 4159284084 Email: nwkanter@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina L. Johnson Murray & Associates Case #08−2406−SI 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 415−673−0555 Fax: 415−928−4084 Email: clj_iplaw@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Henning Murry & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 673−0555 Fax: (415) 928−4084 TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Langham Howard Murray & Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 673−0555 Fax: (415) 928−4084 Email: keithhowardesq@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/21/2009

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 2 of 62

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Zainabu Anderson

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland Murray and Associates 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 415−673−0555 Email: robertcstrickland@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Arita TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dennis Carter TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 3 of 62

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sharon Castillo

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joanna Crotty

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 4 of 62

Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tequisha Curley TERMINATED: 09/08/2009

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alisa Davis−Zehner TERMINATED: 09/15/2009

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marla Denzer TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Langham Howard

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 5 of 62

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patti Flynn

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Teresa Fox

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jon Gray TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 6 of 62

Plaintiff
Tori Jackson TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Howard Bromberg Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065−2129 650−801−5008 Fax: 650−801−5100 Email: danbromberg@quinnemanuel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Ross Jaffe Quinn Emanuel et al 555 Twin Dolphin Dr 5th Fl Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650−801−5000 Email: jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suong Nguyen Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 6508015003 Fax: 6508015100 Email: suongnguyen@quinnemanuel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 7 of 62

Plaintiff Lisa Janssen
Plaintiff Michael Jones TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Francis Henning , III Attorney at Law 270 Divisadero Street, #38 San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94117 Email: henninglawfirm@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 8 of 62

Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Lee

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sandra Maclin−Gibson TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sukhwant Mann TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 9 of 62

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gloria Martin

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Arturo Medrano TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 10 of 62

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marc Nuti TERMINATED: 05/06/2009

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kevin O'Shea TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Peppers

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 11 of 62

Plaintiff Vincent Quock TERMINATED: 01/21/2015
Plaintiff Wendy Rodgers−Wells TERMINATED: 01/21/2015
Plaintiff Lana Slocum TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 12 of 62

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ernest Smith TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 13 of 62

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mattie Spires−Morgan

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Francis Henning , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kenneth Tan TERMINATED: 03/17/2009

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Anjie Versher TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 14 of 62

Plaintiff Bonnie Westlin TERMINATED: 01/21/2015
Plaintiff Yvette Williams

Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Francis Henning , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 15 of 62

Plaintiff Roland Zanie
Plaintiff Michael Zehner TERMINATED: 06/18/2009
Plaintiff Pamela Walker

Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah Wolfson Kanter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Henning (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith Langham Howard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 16 of 62

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Felisha Thomas TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jennifer Keeton

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Olga Kincade

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Emiko Theodoridis

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeremy Dejusus TERMINATED: 04/28/2009

represented by Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Martha Ortega

represented by

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 17 of 62
Lawrence Dale Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Close Strickland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City and County of San Francisco

represented by Jonathan C. Rolnick City Attorney's Office City of San Francisco Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−3815 Fax: 415−554−4248 Email: jonathan.rolnick@sfgov.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret W. Baumgartner City Attorney's Office City & County of San Francisco Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−3859 Fax: 415−554−4248 Email: margaret.baumgartner@sfgov.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Boris Reznikov City Attorney's Office City and County of San Francisco Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−4296 Email: boris.reznikov@sfgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Joan Figg San Francisco City Attorney's Office Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−3971 Fax: 415−554−4248 Email: jill.figg@sfgov.org (Inactive) TERMINATED: 02/10/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rafal Ofierski San Francisco City Attorney's Office Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−4244

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 18 of 62
Fax: 415−554−4248 Email: rafal.ofierski@sfgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/13/2007
07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 08/15/2007 08/31/2007
08/31/2007
09/04/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Damages & Injunctive Relief & Jury Trial Demanded − [Summons Issued] against City & County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, Edward Ruppenstein & Johna Pecot, [Filing Fee: $350.00, Receipt Number 34611008340]. Filed by Plaintiffs Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin & Yvette Williams. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2007) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants City & County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, Edward Ruppenstein & Johna Pecot. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due 10/29/2007 & Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/5/2007 at 4:00 PM.. (Attachments: #(1) BZ Standing Order). (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/17/2007 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2007)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
3 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by City & County of San Francisco. (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City & County of San Francisco re 3 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
5 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
6 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susan Illston for all further proceedings. Judge Bernard Zimmerman no longer assigned to the case.Signed by Executive Committee on 7/27/07. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2007) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 11/9/2007 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2007) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
8 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay Pending Resolution of State Court Proceedings filed by City & County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot. Motion Hearing set for 10/19/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 8/31/2007) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
9 Request for Judicial Notice re 8 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay Pending Resolution of State Court Proceedings filed byCity & County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Related document(s) 8 ) (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 8/31/2007) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City & County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot re 9 Request for Judicial Notice, 8 MOTION to Dismiss or Stay Pending Resolution of State Court Proceedings (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 9/4/2007) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 19 of 62

09/13/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/28/2007
10/05/2007 10/05/2007 10/16/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007 05/20/2008
06/11/2008 06/11/2008

11 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DATE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by City & County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 9/13/2007) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
12 ORDER continuing cmc to 11/16/07. Signed by Judge Illston on 9/14/07. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 11/16/2007 02:00 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
13 Memorandum in Opposition to 8 Motion to Dismiss or Stay Pending Resolution of State Court Proceeding filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/28/2007) Modified on 10/1/2007 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
14 "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO OPPOSITION TO 13 MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY" filed byCity & County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1)(Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/5/2007) Modified on 10/9/2007 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2007)
15 "DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENT REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF 8 MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS" filed byCity & County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/5/2007) Modified on 10/9/2007 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2007)
16 Request for Judicial Notice "DEFENDANTS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS" filed byCity & County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/16/2007) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
17 ORDER GRANTING 8 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF STATE COURT PROCEEDING. The parites are ordered to file joint reports on the status of the state court proceedings every 90 days until its resoluction. Signed by Judge Susan Illston. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
18 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/19/2007 before Illston (Date Filed: 10/23/2007). (Court Reporter S. Wilson.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
19 NOTICE (only) by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 08−2406−PJH (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 5/20/2008) Modified on 5/21/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
20 STIPULATION "STIPULATION FOR ORDER AND ORDER LIFTING STAY DUE TO RESOLUTION OF STATE COURT ACTION" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 6/11/2008) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Rafal Ofierski "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL" (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 6/11/2008) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 20 of 62

06/19/2008 06/19/2008 08/14/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/21/2008 08/22/2008 08/22/2008 08/22/2008
08/25/2008
08/25/2008
08/25/2008 08/26/2008 09/03/2008

22 ORDER lifting stay/setting cmc on 8/29/08. Signed by Judge Illston on 6/18/08. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 8/29/2008 02:30 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
23 ADR Clerk's Notice Re: Non−Compliance with Court Order (ls7, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2008) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
24 REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP. 08−2406−PJH Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/15/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2008) Modified on 8/18/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2008)
25 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options "ADR CERTIFICATION" (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 8/15/2008) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
26 Certificate of Interested Entities by City and County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 8/21/2008) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
27 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Separate Case Management Statement filed by City and County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot. (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 8/22/2008) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
28 Declaration of Jill Figg Dayal in Support of 27 Case Management Statement filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B to Decl. of Jill Figg iso CMC Stmt.)(Related document(s) 27 ) (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 8/22/2008) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
29 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT for Plaintiffs filed by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/22/2008) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
30 MOTION to Dismiss Individual Defendants and Memorandum of Points and Authorities iso Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants filed by City and County of San Francisco, Thomas Arata, Stephen Tilton, Roderick Wallace, John Minor, Edward Ruppenstein, Johna Pecot. Motion Hearing set for 10/3/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 8/25/2008) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
31 DECLARATION of Christina L. Johnson In Response to and/or Opposition to Defendant's Declaration Re: Separate Case Management Conference Statement filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/25/2008) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
32 ORDER RELATING CASE 08−2406. Signed by Judge Illston on 8/22/08. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2008) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
33 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing Motion Hearing set for 11/7/2008 09:00 AM. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2008) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
34 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/29/2008 before Illston (Date Filed: 9/3/2008). Case continued to 11/21/08 @ 2:30 p.m. for Further Case

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 21 of 62

09/03/2008 09/29/2008
10/15/2008 10/17/2008
10/17/2008
10/17/2008
10/17/2008

Management ConferenceCase continued to 11/21/08 @ 9:00 a.m. for Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment(Motion due 10/17/08, Opposition 10/31/08 Reply 11/7/08)ORDERED AFTER HEARING: The Court vacated the 11/7/08 case management conference in C−08−2406 and held it on this day since all the same parties were here on the related case.Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.() (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/3/2008) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 11/21/2008 02:30 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2008) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
35 STIPULATION and Order to File First Amended and Consolidated Complaint by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/29/2008) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
36 ORDER consolidating cases re 35 . Signed by Judge Illston on 10/14/08. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
37 AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST against all defendants. Filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Emiko Theodoridis, Jeremy Dejusus, Pamela Walker, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Felisha Thomas, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
38 Declaration of Zainabu Anderson IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
39 Declaration of Sharon Castillo IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
40 Declaration of Joanna Crotty IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 22 of 62

10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008

Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Crotty Decl Exhibits A−B)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
41 Declaration of Tequisha Curley IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
42 Declaration of Jon Gray IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Jon Gray Decl Exhibits 1−4)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
43 Declaration of Lisa Janssen IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Lisa Janssen Decl. Exhibits 1−13)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
44 Declaration of Kevin O'Shea IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
45 Declaration of Anthony Peppers IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
46 Declaration of Tonyette Smith−Al−Ghani IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 23 of 62

10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008

Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
47 Declaration of Mattie Spires−Morgan IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
48 Declaration of Sukhwant Mann IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
49 Declaration of Pamela Walker IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
50 Declaration of David Wong IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 David Wong Decl. Exhibits 1−16)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
51 MOTION for Summary Judgment NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. Motion Hearing set for 11/21/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
52 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 24 of 62

10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/07/2008
11/07/2008

Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. Motion Hearing set for 11/21/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/17/2008) Modified on 10/20/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
53 DECLARATION of MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER IN SUPPORT OF 57 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) Modified on 11/4/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2008)
54 DECLARATION of UNDERSHERIFF JAN DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT OF 57 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) Modified on 11/4/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2008)
55 DECLARATION of RAFAL OFIERSKI IN OPPOSITION TO 51 PLAINTIFFS' "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) Modified on 11/4/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2008)
56 Request for Judicial Notice "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO 51 PLAINTIFFS' 'MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT'" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) Modified on 11/4/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2008)
57 Memorandum in Opposition "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO 51 PLAINTIFFS' 'MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT'" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) Modified on 11/4/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2008)
58 First MOTION to Dismiss "NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 56F)" filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 11/21/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
59 OBJECTIONS to "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/31/2008) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
60 Memorandum in Opposition TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/7/2008) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
61 Reply to Opposition TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 25 of 62

11/07/2008
11/07/2008
11/07/2008
11/19/2008 11/21/2008 11/24/2008 11/26/2008

Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/7/2008) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
62 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO 56 DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/7/2008) Modified on 11/12/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2008)
63 OBJECTIONS to 54 DECLARATION OF JAN DEMPSEY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/7/2008) Modified on 11/12/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2008)
64 DECL. OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY IN REPLY TO 53 , 55 DECLARATIONS OF BAUMGARTNER AND OFIERSKI IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byRoland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT A TO MURRAY REPLY DECL., # 2 EXHIBIT B TO MURRAY REPLY DECL, # 3 EXHIBIT C TO MURRAY REPLY DECL.)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/7/2008) Modified on 11/12/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2008)
65 Letter from Defendant City and County of San Francisco on behalf of all parties re Court's request for a joint case management statement. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
66 City and County of San Francisco's ANSWER to 37 First Amended & Consol. Cmplt. by Mercy Ambat et al byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 11/21/2008) Modified on 11/24/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2008)
67 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
68 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 11/21/2008 before Illston (Date Filed: 11/26/2008), Motion Hearing held on 11/21/2008 before Illston (Date Filed: 11/26/2008). Case continued to 3/20/09 @ 2:30 p.m. for Further Case Management Conference(joint statement due one week prior)Case continued to 2/12/10 @ 9:00 a.m. for Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment(Motion due 1/8/10, Opposition due 1/22/10 Reply 1/29/10)Case continued to 3/16/10 @ 3:30 p.m. for Pretrial ConferenceCase continued to 3/29/10 @ 8:30 a.m. for Trial (Jury : Days)Discovery Cutoff: 9/30/09 Designate Experts by: 10/9/09, Rebuttal Experts: 10/30/09, Expert Discovery Cutoff: 11/30/09ORDERED AFTER HEARING: This case shall be referred to Magistrate−Judge James for settlement purposes (Court Reporter L. Zinn.) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/26/2008) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 26 of 62

11/26/2008 11/26/2008
12/05/2008
02/12/2009
02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 03/12/2009 03/13/2009
03/13/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/18/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009
03/25/2009 03/30/2009
04/22/2009 04/24/2009
04/24/2009 04/28/2009

69 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Illston on 11/24/08. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2008) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 3/20/2009 02:30 PM. Jury Trial set for 3/29/2010 08:30 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 3/16/2010 03:30 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
70 ORDER re 68 Case Management Conference − Initial,,,, Motion Hearing,,, Settlement Conference set for 3/6/2009 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 12/5/08. (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2008) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
71 ORDER Settlement Conference Rescheduled for 3/17/2009 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 2/12/09. (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
72 STIPULATION and Request for Dismissal of Mercy Ambat by Mercy Ambat. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/17/2009) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
73 NOTICE of Appearance by Keith Langham Howard (Howard, Keith) (Filed on 2/17/2009) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
74 ORDER dismissing Pltf. Mercy Ambat re 72 . Signed by Judge Illston on 2/17/09. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2009) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
75 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 3/20/2009 03:00 PM. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
76 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT "JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT" filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
77 STIPULATION for Order Dismissing Plaintiff Kenneth Tan by Kenneth Tan. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
78 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. (Date Filed: 3/17/2009). () (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/17/2009) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
79 ORDER dismissing pltf. Kenneth Tan. Signed by Judge Illston on 3/16/09. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2009) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
80 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 3/20/2009 03:00 PM. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2009) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
81 NOTICE of Appearance by Lawrence Dale Murray (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
82 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/20/2009 before Illston (Date Filed: 3/25/2009). case continued to 6/12/09 @ 3 p.m. () (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 6/12/2009 03:00 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
83 ORDER Further Settlement Conference set for 6/10/2009 10:00 PM.. Signed by Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 3/30/09. (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2009) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
84 STIPULATION "STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
85 STIPULATION "REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF JEREMY DE JESUS; and [proposed] ORDER" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
86 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/23/09. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
87 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF JEREMY DE JESUS. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/28/09. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2009) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 27 of 62

05/04/2009 05/06/2009 05/29/2009
06/06/2009 06/10/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009
06/17/2009
06/17/2009 06/18/2009 07/07/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/22/2009

88 STIPULATION "REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF MARC NUTI; and [proposed] ORDER" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 5/4/2009) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
89 ORDER dismissing pltf. Marc Nuti (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
90 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Jon Gray, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Pamela Walker, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Felisha Thomas, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Emiko Theodoridis, Jeremy Dejusus, Michael Jones, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Zainabu Anderson, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, John Arita, Anjie Versher, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
91 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY MOTION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2009) (Entered: 06/06/2009)
92 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. Parties Unable to Settle. (Date Filed: 6/10/2009). () (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/10/2009) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
93 Proposed Order on Request for Dismissal as to Michael Zehner by Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
94 NOTICE by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
95 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/12/2009 before Illston (Date Filed: 6/17/2009). Case continued to 8/28/09 @ 3:00 P.M. for Further Case Management Conference(joint statement due one week prior)ORDERED AFTER HEARING: By July 31, 2009, plaintiff shall find out who the estate representative will be for Ernest Smith, otherwise he will be dismissed.Plaintiff shall pay the fee for the canceled deposition. Defendant shall provide a copy of the bill to plaintiff.() (ts, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 8/28/2009 03:00 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
96 ORDER re:Dismissal as to Michael Zehner (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
97 ORDER OF REFERRAL. Ortega v. City and County of San Francisco, C−09−2652 MMC, is referred to the Honorable Susan Illston for consideration of whether the case is related to Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco, 07−3622 SI. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 7, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
98 STIPULATION for Order Dismissing Ernest Smith by Ernest Smith. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
99 STIPULATION for Order Dismissing Lana Slocum by Lana Slocum. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
100 ORDER RELATING CASE to 09−2652. Signed by Judge Illston on 7/15/09. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2009) Modified on 7/23/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF).

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 28 of 62

07/31/2009 07/31/2009 08/04/2009
08/05/2009
08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/31/2009 09/02/2009 09/04/2009

(Entered: 07/22/2009)
101 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 9/15/2009 11:00 AM. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 9/15/2009 11:00 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
102 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decl. of Lawrence Murray, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/4/2009) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
103 MOTION to Amend/Correct FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/5/2009) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
104 Memorandum in Opposition to 103 Pltfs' Mtn. to Amend Cmplt. filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 8/28/2009) Modified on 8/31/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
105 DECLARATION of Margaret Baumgartner in Opp. to 103 Pltfs' Mtn. to Amend Cmplt. filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 8/28/2009) Modified on 8/31/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
106 "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S CONDITIONAL NON−OPPOSITION TO 102 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE" by City and County of San Francisco(Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 8/28/2009) Modified on 8/28/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
107 STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING TEQUISHA CURLEY by Tequisha Curley. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/31/2009) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
108 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Requesting Further Production of Documents Pursuant to Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions with Production of Documents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter Brief Exhibits D−I)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/2/2009) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
109 Reply to 104 Opposition and Declaration of Lawrence Murray in Reply to Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Murray Reply Decl EXHs A−C, # 2 Murray Reply Decl EXHs D−E)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/4/2009) Modified on

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 29 of 62

09/08/2009 09/10/2009 09/10/2009 09/10/2009
09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009
09/16/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009
09/18/2009 09/21/2009

9/8/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/04/2009)
110 ORDER dismissing Curley (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2009) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
111 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT "JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT" filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
112 AMENDED DOCUMENT by City and County of San Francisco. "AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT". (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
113 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
114 Letter from Margaret W. Baumgartner, Deputy City Attorney, to Honorable Judge Susan Y. Illston.. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
115 STIPULATION for Dismissal of Plaintiff Alisa Davis−Zehner by Alisa Davis−Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
116 Letter from City and County of San Francisco Requesting Order Compelling Plaintiff Jon Gray To Answer Deposition Questions. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
117 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 9/18/2009 09:00 AM. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
118 ORDER dismissing Davis−Zehmer (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
119 ORDER dismissing Davis−Zehmer (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
120 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Supplemental Brief Requesting Further Production of Documents Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition with Production of Documents. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
121 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/16/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
122 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
123 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION re 102 , 103 . Consolidated Amended Complaint is due 9/25/09. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
124 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT re 6 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
125 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/18/2009 before Illston (Date Filed: 9/21/2009), Motion Hearing held on 9/18/2009 before Illston (Date Filed: 9/21/2009), CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James for Settlement Conference. (Court Reporter S. McVickar.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/21/2009) (Entered:

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 30 of 62

09/21/2009 09/22/2009 09/22/2009
09/23/2009 09/24/2009 09/28/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009 10/01/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009 10/12/2009

09/21/2009)
126 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Letter Brief Requesting Inspection of Real Property and Concurrent Measurement, Video Tape, and Photograph of the Property. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/21/2009) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
127 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Letter Brief Requesting Further Production of Documents Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents Set One (1). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D−H)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
128 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief against City and County of San Francisco. Filed byTeresa Fox, Vincent Quock, Ernest Smith, Anthony Peppers, Marla Denzer, Joanna Crotty, Mercy Ambat, Jennifer Keeton, Jeremy Dejusus, Michael Jones, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Bonnie Westlin, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Sharon Castillo, Tequisha Curley, Pamela Walker, Anjie Versher, Arturo Medrano, Kenneth Tan, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Michael Zehner, Jon Gray, Dennis Carter, Sukhwant Mann, Lana Slocum, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Patti Flynn, Kevin O'Shea, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Felisha Thomas, Lisa Janssen, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Tori Jackson, John Arita, Yvette Williams, Emiko Theodoridis, Gloria Martin, Roland Zanie, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Marc Nuti, Zainabu Anderson. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
129 Letter from Defendant City and County of San Francisco to Honorable Judge Susan Illston. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
130 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION re 116 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
131 Letter from DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO HONORABLE JUDGE SUSAN ILLSTON. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
132 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR INSPECTION and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
133 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Letter Brief Requesting Production of Documents Identified in Defendant's Privilege Log. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
134 STIPULATION "JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY EXPERT REPORT DISCLOSURE AND FILING DEADLINES" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/1/2009) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
135 ORDER extending deadlines (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2009) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
136 Letter from Lawrence Murray Notification to Court of Discovery Dispute. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/5/2009) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
137 Letter from City and County of San Francisco Re: Pltfs' Req. to Compel Production of Privileged Documents. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 10/6/2009) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
138 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Letter Brief Requesting Production of Documents in Compliance with Court Order; Request to Strike Defendants Claim of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification; and a Request for Sanctions. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
139 Letter from CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO HON. JUDGE SUSAN ILLSTON. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/9/2009) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
140 STIPULATION for Order to File Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 31 of 62

10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/16/2009
10/19/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/22/2009
10/27/2009

Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/12/2009) (Entered: 10/12/2009)
141 ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING OF SUBSEQUENTLY FILED CASES : 08−2406, 09−2652 are administratively closed. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
142 Letter from CCSF Re Representation Issue. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
143 Letter from Defendant, City and County of San Francisco, Margaret Baumgartner, Deputy City Attorney. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
144 ORDER re: 3rd amended and consolidated complaint (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
145 AMENDED COMPLAINT Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint against City and County of San Francisco. Filed byTeresa Fox, Vincent Quock, Ernest Smith, Anthony Peppers, Marla Denzer, Joanna Crotty, Mercy Ambat, Jennifer Keeton, Jeremy Dejusus, Michael Jones, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Bonnie Westlin, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Sharon Castillo, Tequisha Curley, Pamela Walker, Anjie Versher, Arturo Medrano, Kenneth Tan, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Michael Zehner, Jon Gray, Dennis Carter, Sukhwant Mann, Lana Slocum, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Patti Flynn, Kevin O'Shea, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Martha Ortega, Felisha Thomas, Lisa Janssen, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Tori Jackson, John Arita, Yvette Williams, Emiko Theodoridis, Gloria Martin, Roland Zanie, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Marc Nuti, Zainabu Anderson. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/16/2009) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
146 Letter from Defendant City and County of San Francisco, Margaret Baumgartner, Deputy City Attorney. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/19/2009) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
147 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS[Docket Nos. 133, 136, 138] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
148 Letter from Lawrence Murray Re Capt. Pecot Deposition. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
149 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Lawrence Dale Murray (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/21/2009) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
150 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Lawrence Dale Murray (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/21/2009) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
151 Letter from Lawrence Murray re Attorney−Client Privilege with former plaintiffs. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/21/2009) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
152 AMENDED COMPLAINT Third Amended & Consolidated Complaint against City and County of San Francisco. Filed byTeresa Fox, Vincent Quock, Ernest Smith, Anthony Peppers, Marla Denzer, Joanna Crotty, Mercy Ambat, Jennifer Keeton, Jeremy Dejusus, Michael Jones, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Bonnie Westlin, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Sharon Castillo, Tequisha Curley, Pamela Walker, Anjie Versher, Arturo Medrano, Kenneth Tan, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Michael Zehner, Jon Gray, Dennis Carter, Sukhwant Mann, Lana Slocum, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Patti Flynn, Kevin O'Shea, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Martha Ortega, Felisha Thomas, Lisa Janssen, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Tori Jackson, John Arita, Yvette Williams, Emiko Theodoridis, Gloria Martin, Roland Zanie, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Marc Nuti, Zainabu Anderson. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/22/2009) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
153 Letter from CCSF re Cpt. J. Pecot Depo.. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 10/27/2009) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 32 of 62

10/27/2009 10/28/2009 10/29/2009 10/29/2009
10/30/2009 10/30/2009 11/06/2009 11/11/2009 11/12/2009 11/17/2009 11/18/2009 11/18/2009 11/19/2009 11/19/2009 12/07/2009 12/15/2009

154 Letter from CCSF Re former Pltfs. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 10/27/2009) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
155 ORDER TO DISCLOSE EXTENT OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION[Docket No. 142] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
156 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Letter Brief Requesting Order For Weekend Access To County Jail #8. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/29/2009) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
157 STIPULATION for Order Permitting Extension on Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Exchange of Expert Witness Reports by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/29/2009) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
158 Letter from City and County of San Francisco to Court Re Response to Weekend Access to CJ #8. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 10/30/2009) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
159 ORDER permitting extension on Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Exchange of Reports (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2009) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
160 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION OF CAPTAIN PECOT[Docket No. 148] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
161 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Discovery Dispute Regarding the Deposition of Officer Patrick Brady. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/11/2009) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
162 ANSWER to 152 Amended Complaint (Third Amended Cmplt.) byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modified on 11/13/2009 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)
163 Order Rescheduling Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference set for 12/7/2009 02:00 PM. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 11/17/09. (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2009) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
164 Letter from "DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO THE COURT IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOVEMBER 11, 2009 LETTER RE BRADY DEPOSITION". (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 11/18/2009) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
165 Letter from Lawrence Murray regarding Order Permitting Filing of Statements of Undisputed Facts for Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/18/2009) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
166 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY REQUEST [Docket No. 161] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
167 ORDER to permit filing (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
168 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. Parties Unable to Settle. (Date Filed: 12/7/2009). () (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/7/2009) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
169 STIPULATION FOR ORDER AND ORDER PERMITTING EXTENSION ON DATES FOR COMMENCING DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 33 of 62

12/21/2009 01/05/2010 01/05/2010 01/06/2010 01/06/2010 01/07/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010
01/08/2010
01/08/2010
01/08/2010

170 ORDER PERMITTING EXTENSION ON DATES FOR COMMENCING DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSEs (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2009) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
171 MOTION permission to file oversize brief, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/5/2010) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
172 Declaration of Rafal Ofierski ISO City's Motion For Administrative Relief Re: Page Limitation filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/5/2010) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
173 Ex Parte Application "ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER IN SUPPORT OF SAME" filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/6/2010) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
174 Proposed Order Granting Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Administrative Application for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/6/2010) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
175 Letter from Lawrence Murray with Proposed Order for Page Limit Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/7/2010) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
176 Declaration of Luke Welmerink in Support of Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
178 Declaration of Lieutenant Flewellyn in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF LIEUTENANT FLEWELLYN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
179 Declaration of Captain John A. Pecot in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF CAPTAIN JOHN A. PECOT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
180 Declaration of Lorena Marquez in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF LORENA MARQUEZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
181 Declaration of Sheriff Michael Hennessey in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF SHERIFF MICHAEL

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 34 of 62

01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010

HENNESSEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
182 Declaration of Susana Martinez in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF SUSANA MARTINEZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
183 Declaration of Undersherrif Jan Dempsey in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF UNDERSHERIFF JAN DEMPSEY IN SUPPORT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
184 Declaration of Deputy Chief Veronica Keller in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF DEPUTY CHIEF VERONICA KELLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT−VOLUME 1 OF 3 (W/EXHIBITS A−D)" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
185 Declaration of Deputy Chief Veronica Keller in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF DEPUTY CHIEF VERONICA KELLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT−VOLUME 2 (EXHIBIT E)" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
186 Declaration of Deputy Chief Veronica Keller in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF DEPUTY CHIEF VERONICA KELLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT−VOLUME 3 (EXHIBITS F−J)" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
187 Declaration of Rafal Ofierski in Support of 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "DECLARATION OF RAFAL OFIERSKI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (W/EXHIBITS A THROUGH D)" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E through P, # 2 Exhibit Q through CC, # 3 Exhibit DD though QQ, # 4 Exhibit RR through WW)(Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
188 Brief re 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 35 of 62

01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010
01/08/2010
01/08/2010

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
189 Appendix re 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "APPENDIX OF SELECTED AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
190 Request for Judicial Notice re 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 177 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
191 Statement re 177 MOTION for Summary Judgment "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES" "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT" by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
192 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
193 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 192 MSJ filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) Modified on 1/11/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2010)
194 Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of 192 MSJ filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 36 of 62

01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010

Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) Modified on 1/11/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2010)
195 Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 LM dec EXH A part 1, # 2 LM dec EXH A part 2, # 3 LM dec EXH B part 1, # 4 LM dec EXH B part 2, # 5 LM dec EXH B part 3, # 6 LM dec EXH B part 4)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
196 EXHIBITS Murray Decl EXH B parts 5−9 filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 LM dec Exh B part 6, # 2 LM dec Exh B part 7, # 3 LM dec Exh B part 8, # 4 LM dec Exh B part 9)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
197 EXHIBITS Murray Declaration EXHIBITS C − L filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 LM Dec Exh E part 1, # 2 LM Dec Exh E part 2, # 3 LM Dec Exh F, # 4 LM Dec Exh G−L)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
198 EXHIBITS Murray Declaration EXHIBITS M − Z filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 LM Dec Exh R−V, # 2 LM Dec Exh W−Z)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
199 EXHIBITS Murray Decl EXHIBITS AA − KK filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 37 of 62

01/08/2010
01/08/2010
01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/14/2010
01/15/2010

Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 LM Decl Exhibits GG − HH, # 2 LM Decl Exhibits II − KK)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
200 EXHIBITS Murray Decl. EXHIBITS LL − UU filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 LM Decl EXH RR − UU)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
201 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff JON GRAY's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Jon Gray. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, # 2 Jon Gray's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support, # 3 Decl of Jon Gray in Support)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
205 EXHIBIT B (CD) to re 180 Declaration of Lorena Marquez in Support, filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 180 ) (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
206 EXHIBITS A & B to re 184 Declaration of Deputy Chief Veronica Keller in Support, filed byCity and County of San Francisco. FILED UNDER SEAL (Related document(s) 184 ) (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
202 NOTICE by City and County of San Francisco "Manual Filing Notification" (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
203 ORDER granting leave to seal re 174 (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
204 ORDER granting 171 Motion ; (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
207 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of San Francisco "PROOF OF SERVICE" (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/13/2010) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
208 ORDER Granting Defendant City & County of San Francisco's Administrative Application For Leave To File Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 1/13/10. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2010) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
209 ORDER granting re 171 MOTION permission to file oversize brief MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by City and County of San Francisco. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 1/13/10. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2010) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
210 Ex Parte Application For Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/14/2010) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
211 ERRATA to 195 Declaration of Lawrence Murray in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment & Errata to Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 38 of 62

01/19/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010
01/22/2010

Facts in Support of MSJ filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 ERRATA to Separate Statement)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/15/2010) Modified on 1/19/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2010)
212 Letter from Defendant City and County of San Francisco to Honorable Susan Illston, Judge. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/19/2010) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
213 ORDER granting 210 Ex Parte Application for leave to seal. The court has not received any documents that the motion pertains to. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
214 Memorandum in Opposition 'MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (2ND.) filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
215 DECLARATION of MICKI CALLAHAN IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
216 DECLARATION of DEPUTY CHIEF VERONICA KELLER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
217 DECLARATION of MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (2ND.) AND IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATION filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
218 OBJECTIONS to "DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND)" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
219 MOTION to Strike "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS" filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
220 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
221 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 39 of 62

01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010

Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
222 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
223 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Mattie Spires Morgan in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
224 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Anjie Versher in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
225 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and the Declaration of Jan Dempsey in Opposition of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
226 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Flewellyn in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 40 of 62

01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010

Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
227 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Michael Hennessey in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
228 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Keller in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
229 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Marquez in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
230 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Martinez in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
231 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Pecot in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, City and County of San Francisco, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 41 of 62

01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010

Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
232 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Welmericnk in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
233 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Evidence and Declaration of Ofierski in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
234 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Objection to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
235 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Dennis Carter in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
236 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Gray in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered:

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 42 of 62

01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010

01/22/2010)
237 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Lee in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
238 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Mann in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
239 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Medrano in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
240 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of O'Shea in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
241 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Peppers in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 43 of 62

01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/23/2010

242 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Declaration of Zanie in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
243 Memorandum in Opposition Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
244 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
245 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
250 Portion of EXHIBIT F to re 222 Declaration of Lawrence Murry in support by plaintiffs. FILED UNDER SEAL (Related document(s) 222 ) (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
246 DECLARATION of MAUSHANTA BENJAMIN in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 44 of 62

01/25/2010
01/25/2010
01/26/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010
01/29/2010

Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/23/2010) (Entered: 01/23/2010)
247 ERRATA Declaration of Mattie Spires Morgan in Support of Opposition to Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
248 ERRATA Declaration of Anjie Versher in Support of Opposition to Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
249 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Regarding Defendant's Request to Exclude Ric Fatone Zayas as Witness and Strike Declaration. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/26/2010) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
251 STIPULATION AND ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF OVERSIZE REPLY BRIEF by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
252 "REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 177 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
253 Declaration of Rafal Ofierski In Support of 252 Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
254 Appendix of Selected Authorities In Support of Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Reply on Its Motion for Summary Judgement filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
255 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO 177 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
256 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO 219 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 45 of 62

01/29/2010
01/29/2010 01/29/2010
01/29/2010
01/29/2010 01/29/2010

Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
257 PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND THE DECLARATION OF VERONICA KELLER SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
258 "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO CITY'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
259 PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND THE DECLARATION OF MIKI CALLAHAN SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
260 Declaration of Lawrence Murray in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
261 "DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS AND DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" by City and County of San Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
262 "DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" by City and County of San

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 46 of 62

01/29/2010
02/01/2010 02/02/2010 02/04/2010 02/09/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/16/2010 02/17/2010 02/18/2010 02/18/2010 03/01/2010
03/08/2010 03/08/2010

Francisco. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
263 MOTION "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER RE: CITY'S OPPOSITION TO JON GRAY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER" filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 1/29/2010) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
264 ORDER allowing oversize brief re 251 (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2010) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
265 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO EXCLUDE RIC ZAYAS AS WITNESS AND STRIKE ZAYAS DECLARATION(SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
266 ORDER granting 263 Motion (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2010) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
267 Letter from Deputy City Attorney Margaret W. Baumgartner to the Court Re Ric Fatone Zayas Declaration. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 2/9/2010) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
268 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Jill Joan Figg (Figg, Jill) (Filed on 2/10/2010) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
269 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Defendants Request To Exclude Ric Fatone Zayas As Witness And Strike Declaration. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/10/2010) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
270 Letter from Lawrence Murray Defendants Request to Exclude Ric Fatone Zayas as Witness and Strike Declaration. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/10/2010) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
271 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/12/2010 before Illston (Date Filed: 2/16/2010). (Court Reporter K. Wyatt.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/16/2010) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
272 ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS re 177 , 192 , 201 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2010) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
273 ORDER CLARIFYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2010) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
274 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Letter Brief on Order on Summary Judgment Motions Re: Plaintiffs Spires−Morgan and Versher's Retaliation Claims. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/18/2010) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
275 "SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD IN SUPPORT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE CLAIM OF LISA JANSSEN" filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit)(Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 3/1/2010) Modified on 3/1/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2010)
276 Letter from Lawrence Murray re Pre Trial Conference Statement. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 3/8/2010) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
277 SUPPLEMETAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE CLAIM OF LISA JANSSEN filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 47 of 62

03/09/2010 03/15/2010 03/16/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/18/2010 03/18/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 05/07/2010 05/20/2010 05/28/2010 06/08/2010 06/10/2010 06/14/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010 06/17/2010

Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 3/8/2010) Modified on 3/9/2010 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
278 CLERKS NOTICE Jury Trial set for 4/5/2010 08:30 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 3/30/2010 03:30 PM. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2010) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
279 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' RETALIATION CLAIMS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2010) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
280 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray Request for Continuation of Current Trial Date. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 3/16/2010) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
281 Letter from CCSF re: Pltfs' Request to Continue Trial. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 3/17/2010) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
282 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL. Trial is reset for 6/28/10. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2010) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Jury Trial set for 6/28/2010 08:30 AM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2010) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
283 CLERKS NOTICE Pretrial Conference set for 6/15/2010 03:30 PM. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2010) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 6/15/2010 03:30 PM. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2010) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
284 Letter from Deputy City Attorney Margaret W. Baumgartner Requesting Settlement Conference Dates from the Court. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 4/15/2010) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
285 Letter from Deputy City Attorney Margaret W. Baumgartner Re Selecting June 8, 2010 for a Settlement Conference. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 4/15/2010) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
286 Letter from Defendant City and County of San Francisco to Honorable Maria Elena James re Settlement Date. (Baumgartner, Margaret) (Filed on 5/7/2010) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
287 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Re Pretrial Submissions by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 5/20/2010) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
288 ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE DATES (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
289 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. (Date Filed: 6/8/2010). Further Settlement Conference set for 6/10/2010 10:30 AM. () (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/8/2010) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
290 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. Case Settled. (Date Filed: 6/10/2010). (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/10/2010) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
291 Transcript of Proceedings held on 6/10/10 (c/r: Katherine Wyatt), before Magistrate Judge Maria James. FILED UNDER SEAL (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2010) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
292 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice upon settlement. Within 90 days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order shall be vacated and this cause shall worthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2010) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
293 Letter from Lawrence Murray Objecting to Dismissal. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/16/2010) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
294 Letter from City and County of San Francisco Re: Pltfs' Proposed Form of Judgment. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 6/17/2010) (Entered: 06/17/2010)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 48 of 62

06/17/2010
06/18/2010 07/02/2010 07/08/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/21/2010
07/28/2010 08/25/2010 09/02/2010 09/08/2010 09/23/2010 02/22/2011

295 Proposed Order [proposed] FINAL JUDGMENT by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/17/2010) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
296 Letter from Lawrence Murray re Request to Court to Enter Judgment. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/18/2010) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
297 CLERKS NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT the parties have been instructed to resolve the issues mentioned in the recently letters with Magistrate−Judge James before bringing them to Judge Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2010) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
298 Letter from Lawrence Murray re: Request to Reconsider Ruling on Summary Judgment. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/8/2010) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
299 Letter from CCSF Re: Pltfs' Request for Reconsideration. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/9/2010) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
300 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2010) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
301 MOTION for Reconsideration Plaintiffs' Points and Authorities in Support of Reconsideration of Grant of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment and Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Claims and Defenses of Gender Discrimination by the Defendant City and County of San Francisco filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
302 Brief Re: Breiner v. Nevada DOC filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/28/2010) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
303 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT'S FAVOR ON CLAIMS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION re 301 (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2010) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
304 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray re Plaintiff Request for Meeting with Magistrate Judge James. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/2/2010) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
305 Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge. Further Settlement Conference set for 9/23/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES on 9/8/10. (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2010) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
306 Minute Entry: Settlement Discussion Held. (Date Filed: 9/23/2010). (Recording #FTR: 10:45 − 11:04.) (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/23/2010) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
307 Letter from City and County of San Francisco Re: Briefing Schedule for Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 2/22/2011) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 49 of 62

02/23/2011 04/01/2011
04/14/2011 04/22/2011 04/22/2011 05/06/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011 06/06/2011 06/08/2011 06/08/2011 06/21/2011

308 ORDER RE FILING OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT re 307 Letter filed by City and County of San Francisco. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 2/23/2011. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2011) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
309 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motin for Entry of Judgment on all Claims and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof, or in the Alternative Entry of Judgment on One or More of Plaintiff's Multiple Claims (FRCP 58;54) filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of LDM, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of LDM, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Judgment on All Claims, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Judgment on Some Claims)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 4/1/2011) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
310 CLERKS NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 309 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motin for Entry of Judgment on all Claims and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof, or in the Alternative Entry of Judgment on One or More of Plaintiff&#0. Motion Hearing set for 5/27/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2011) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
311 MOTION for Settlement (to Enforce Settlement) or, in the alternative, set trial date filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 5/27/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 4/22/2011) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
312 Declaration of Rafal Ofierski in Support of CCSF Motion to Enforce Settlement Or, in the Alternative, Set Trial Date filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 4/22/2011) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
313 RESPONSE/Opposition to (re 309 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motin for Entry of Judgment on all Claims and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof, or in the Alternative Entry of Judgment on One or More of Plaintiff&#0 ) filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 5/6/2011) Modified on 5/6/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2011)
314 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing (Date Filed: 5/27/2011). (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/27/2011) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
315 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT re 309 , 311 (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011) Modified on 5/31/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/2011)
316 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray re Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/6/2011) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
317 ***PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT NUMBER 318***NOTICE by City and County of San Francisco NOTICE RE: SETTLEMENT OF RETALIATION CLAIMS (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 6/8/2011) Modified on 6/8/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2011)
318 NOTICE by City and County of San Francisco NOTICE RE: SETTLEMENT OF RETALIATION CLAIMS (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 6/8/2011) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
319 JUDGMENT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2011) (Entered: 06/21/2011)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 50 of 62

07/01/2011 07/05/2011
07/05/2011 07/06/2011 07/12/2011 07/18/2011

320 BILL OF COSTS by City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B & C)(Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/1/2011) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
321 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 8/12/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 7/19/2011. Replies due by 7/26/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Lawrence Murray, # 3 Declaration of Robert Strickland, # 4 Declaration of John Henning III)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/5/2011) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
322 Bill of Costs filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Responses due by 7/19/2011. Replies due by 7/26/2011. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/5/2011) Modified on 7/6/2011 (mjj2S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2011)
323 EXHIBITS re 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees Exhibits to Declaration of Lawrence Murray filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Related document(s) 321 ) (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/6/2011) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
324 OBJECTIONS to re 320 Bill of Costs by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/12/2011) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
325 NOTICE OF APPEAL 11−16746 as to 319 Judgment by Zainabu Anderson, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Gloria Martin, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Emiko Theodoridis, Pamela Walker, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie Notice of Appeal. Filing fee $ 455, receipt #34611062375. Appeal Record due by 8/17/2011. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/18/2011) Modified on 7/19/2011 (tf, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/20/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2011: # 1 docket sheet) (ys, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/25/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/2011)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 51 of 62

07/18/2011
07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011
07/20/2011 07/22/2011 07/25/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/28/2011 08/03/2011 08/10/2011

330 NOTICE OF APPEAL 11−16752 as to 319 Judgment, 303 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 272 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 279 Order, 315 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for Settlement by Jon Gray. (Appeal filing fee: billed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2011: # 2 docket sheet) (ys, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/16/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2011)
326 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/19/2011) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
327 DECLARATION of Rafal Ofierski in Support of 326 Objections to Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs and Fee Motion filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/19/2011) Modified on 7/20/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2011)
328 RESPONSE/Opposition to (re 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees ) Opposition to Pltfs' Motion for Atorneys Fees filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/19/2011) Modified on 7/20/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2011)
329 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 325 Amended Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notification Form)(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
331 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 330 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notification Form)(ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
332 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant re 330 Notice of Appeal(cc to USCA) (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
333 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 11−16746 re 325 Notice of Appeal by Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Lisa Janssen, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Gloria Martin, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Emiko Theodoridis, Pamela Walker, Yvette Williams, Michael Zehner Amended Notice of Appeal. Filing fee $ 455. Appeal Record due by 8/19/2011. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/20/2011) Modified on 7/21/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/25/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2011)
335 USCA Case Number 11−16746 USCA for 325 Notice of Appeal, 333 Amended Notice of Appeal. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
334 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 333 Amended Notice of Appeal. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/22/2011: # 1 docket sheet) (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2011)
338 ORDER of USCA as to 330 Notice of Appeal re Appeal Filing Fee. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2011) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
336 REPLY (re 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees ) Memo. of Points & Authorities filed byLisa Janssen, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Anjie Versher. (Henning, John) (Filed on 7/26/2011) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
337 Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Support of 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Supplemental Declaration) filed byLisa Janssen, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Anjie Versher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Exhibits 1−3))(Related document(s) 321 ) (Henning, John) (Filed on 7/26/2011) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
339 Statement of Recent Decision by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 7/28/2011) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
340 Letter from Lawrence Murray Requesting Continuance of Hearing on Plaintiffs' Fee Motion. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
341 ORDER continuing motion (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 52 of 62

08/10/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/30/2011 08/30/2011
09/01/2011
09/02/2011 09/07/2011
09/07/2011 09/09/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
342 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for proceedings held on 2/12/10 (C/R: K. Wyatt) by plaintiffs' counsel before Judge Susan Illston. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
343 ORDER of USCA (11−16752): The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. The briefing schedule established previously shall remain in effect. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2011) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
344 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
345 Declaration of Mattie Spires−Morgan in Support of 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees DECLARATION OF MATTIE MORGAN SPIRES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS OF LITIGATION filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Related document(s) 321 ) (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/30/2011) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
346 Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/1/2011) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
347 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES and Awards $8,925 in attorey's fees re 321 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2011) Modified on 9/7/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2011)
348 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 9/2/2011 before Illston (Date Filed: 9/7/2011) re 321 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Arturo Medrano, Tequisha Curley, Mercy Ambat, Teresa Fox, Michael Zehner, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Lisa Janssen, Emiko Theodoridis, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, John Arita, Sharon Castillo, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Tori Jackson, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Gloria Martin, Sukhwant Mann, Anjie Versher, Michael Jones, Roland Zanie, Marc Nuti, Lana Slocum, Pamela Walker, Marla Denzer, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Ernest Smith, Kenneth Tan, Felisha Thomas, Joanna Crotty, Jennifer Keeton, Jeremy Dejusus, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Bonnie Westlin, Jon Gray, Richard Lee, Dennis Carter, Patti Flynn, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani. (Court Reporter J. Columbini.) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
349 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray re Clarification on Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
350 Letter from CCSF in opposition to Pltfs' request for clarification of fee award. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 53 of 62

09/19/2011 09/29/2011
09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/27/2011 11/14/2011
12/06/2011
12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/23/2011

351 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
352 NOTICE OF APPEAL 11−17330 as to 347 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by Zainabu Anderson, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Lisa Janssen, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Gloria Martin, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Emiko Theodoridis, Pamela Walker, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie. Filing fee $ 455, receipt #34611065209. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2011) Modified on 10/12/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2011)
353 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 352 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notification Form)(ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2011: # 2 docket sheet) (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2011)
354 USCA Case Number 11−17330 USCA for 352 Notice of Appeal, filed by Roland Zanie, Pamela Walker, Teresa Fox, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Anthony Peppers, Lisa Janssen, Joanna Crotty, Emiko Theodoridis, Jennifer Keeton, Sharon Castillo, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Richard Lee, Patti Flynn, Gloria Martin, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
355 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for proceedings held on 9/2/11 (c/r: Joan Columbini) before Judge Susan Illston. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2011) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
356 Transcript of Proceedings held on September 2, 2011, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Joan Marie Columbini, CSR, RPR, Telephone number 415−255−6842. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 12/5/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/15/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/13/2012. (Columbini, Joan) (Filed on 11/14/2011) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
357 Transcript of Proceedings held on 2−12−10, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katheirne Wyatt, Telephone number 925−212−5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/5/2012. (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
358 BILL OF COSTS (Amended) by City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
359 AFFIDAVIT of Eric Lach in Support of Amended Bill of Costs by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
360 OBJECTIONS to 358 Defendant's Amended Bill of Costs; Declaration of Counsel in Support Thereof by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 12/23/2011) Modified on 12/27/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/2011)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 54 of 62

02/16/2012 05/09/2012
05/15/2012 05/21/2012 07/05/2012 07/25/2012 08/01/2012 07/02/2014 08/05/2014
08/05/2014 08/05/2014

361 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray RE Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/16/2012) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
362 REQUEST Plaintiff Mattie Spires−Morgan's Request for Hearing and Demand for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Support of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Entry of Judgment on all Claims and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, or in the Alternative Entry of Judgment on One or More or Plaintiff's Multiple Claims, # 2 Exhibit Exhibig A−G)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 5/9/2012) Modified on 5/10/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2012)
363 ORDER of USCA as to 330 Notice of Appeal. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
364 RESPONSE to 362 Plaintiff M. Spires−Morgan's Req. for Hrg. & Demand For Enforcement of Settlement Agmt. by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/22/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)
365 ORDER RE: PARTIES' BILLS OF COSTS. The Court hereby awards plaintiffs $3,239.80 in costs and defendant $48,330.72 in costs. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/5/2012) Modified on 7/6/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2012)
Set/Reset Hearing re 362 Brief 361 Letter Telephone Conference set for 7/31/2012 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
366 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference held re enforcement of settlement. (Date Filed: 8/1/2012). (Recording #Not Recorded.) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/1/2012) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
367 USCA Memorandum as to 330 Notice of Appeal, 333 Amended Notice of Appeal, 352 Notice of Appeal, 325 Amended Notice of Appeal: AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, VACATEDin part, DISMISSED in part, and REMANDED for furtherproceedings. Each party shall bear its own costs. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
368 MANDATE of USCA as to 333 Amended Notice of Appeal,, filed by Pamela Walker, Teresa Fox, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Michael Zehner, Anthony Peppers, Lisa Janssen, Joanna Crotty, Emiko Theodoridis, Jennifer Keeton, John Arita, Sharon Castillo, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Richard Lee, Patti Flynn, Gloria Martin, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson, 330 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jon Gray, 325 Amended Notice of Appeal,, filed by Roland Zanie, Pamela Walker, Teresa Fox, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Anthony Peppers, Lisa Janssen, Emiko Theodoridis, Joanna Crotty, Jennifer Keeton, Sharon Castillo, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Richard Lee, Patti Flynn, Gloria Martin, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
369 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
370 ORDER of USCA as to 333 Amended Notice of Appeal,, filed by Pamela Walker, Teresa Fox, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Michael Zehner, Anthony Peppers, Lisa Janssen, Joanna Crotty, Emiko Theodoridis, Jennifer Keeton, John Arita, Sharon Castillo, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Richard Lee, Patti Flynn, Gloria Martin, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson, 330 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jon Gray, 352 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Roland Zanie, Pamela Walker, Teresa Fox, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Anthony Peppers, Lisa Janssen, Emiko Theodoridis, Joanna

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 55 of 62

08/19/2014 09/19/2014
09/23/2014 09/30/2014
09/30/2014 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/09/2014 10/31/2014

Crotty, Jennifer Keeton, Sharon Castillo, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Richard Lee, Patti Flynn, Gloria Martin, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson, 325 Amended Notice of Appeal,, filed by Roland Zanie, Pamela Walker, Teresa Fox, Olga Kincade, Yvette Williams, Anthony Peppers, Lisa Janssen, Emiko Theodoridis, Joanna Crotty, Jennifer Keeton, Sharon Castillo, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Richard Lee, Patti Flynn, Gloria Martin, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Martha Ortega, Zainabu Anderson (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
371 CLERKS NOTICE Further Case Management Conference set for 9/26/2014 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Counsel shall file a joint case management conference statement one week prior to the conference. This is a docket text entry only, there is no document associated with this notice. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2014) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
372 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 9/19/2014) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
373 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Howard Bromberg (Bromberg, Daniel) (Filed on 9/23/2014) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
374 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 9/26/2014 before Susan Illston (Date Filed: 9/30/2014). Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/3/2015 03:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Selection set for 2/17/2015 08:30 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Jury Trial set for 2/17/2015 08:30 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (Court Reporter n/a.) (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
375 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 9/30/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
376 Letter from Lawrence D. Murray . (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
377 CLERK'S NOTICE : Counsel shall contact Magistrate−Judge James to schedule a follow up settlement conference. Magistrate−Judge James is already assigned as the settlement judge and no new referral shall be made. This is a docket text entry only, there is no document associated with this notice. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
378 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge: Settlement Conference set for 11/14/2014 10:00 AM, in Chambers, 15th Floor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 10/9/2014. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
379 MOTION for Summary Judgment RENEWED filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Jon Gray, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 12/5/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 11/14/2014. Replies due by 11/21/2014. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) (Entered: 10/31/2014)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 56 of 62

10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014

380 Declaration of Lawrence Murray Resubmitted ISO Renewed MSJ filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Murray Decl Part 2, # 2 Murray Decl Part 3, # 3 Murray Decl Part 4, # 4 Murray Decl Part 5, # 5 Murray Decl Part 6, # 6 Murray Decl Part 7, # 7 Murray Decl Part 8, # 8 Murray Decl Part 9, # 9 Murray Decl Part 10)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) Modified on 11/3/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
381 Exhibits part 11−18 to 380 Declaration of Lawrence Murray filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Murray Decl Part 12, # 2 Murray Decl Part 13, # 3 Murray Decl Part 14, # 4 Murray Decl Part 15, # 5 Murray Decl Part 16, # 6 Murray Decl Part 17, # 7 Murray Decl Part 18)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) Modified on 11/3/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
382 Exhibits parts 19−25 to 380 Declaration of Lawrence Murray filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Murray Decl Part 20, # 2 Murray Decl Part 21, # 3 Murray Decl Part 22, # 4 Murray Decl Part 23, # 5 Murray Decl Part 24, # 6 Murray Decl Part 25)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) Modified on 11/3/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
383 Evidence in support of 279 Renewed MSJ filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) Modified on 11/3/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
384 Supplemental Evidence iso 379 Renewed MSJ filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 57 of 62

10/31/2014
11/14/2014 11/14/2014 11/22/2014
12/02/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/17/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014

Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) Modified on 11/3/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
385 Memo of Points & Authorities in Support of 379 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ISO Renewed MSJ)(Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/31/2014) Modified on 11/3/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
386 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James: Settlement Conference held on 11/14/2014. (Date Filed: 11/14/2014) FTR Time: Not Recorded. Plaintiff Attorney Lawrence C. Murray, Robert Strickland, Daniel Bromberg. Defendant Attorney Jonathan C. Rolnick, Rafal Ofierski, Frey A. Horne. Attachment Minute Order.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
387 RESPONSE (re 379 MOTION for Summary Judgment RENEWED ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 11/14/2014) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
388 REPLY (re 379 MOTION for Summary Judgment RENEWED ) filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/22/2014) (Entered: 11/22/2014)
389 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 379 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/2/2014) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
390 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan C. Rolnick (Rolnick, Jonathan) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
391 NOTICE of Appearance by Jordan Ross Jaffe as Counsel for Plaintiff Jon Gray (Jaffe, Jordan) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
392 NOTICE of Appearance by Suong Nguyen (Nguyen, Suong) (Filed on 12/17/2014) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
393 NOTICE of Motion by City and County of San Francisco CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT NON−APPEALING PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PARTIES ON REMAND (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 12/19/2014) Modified on 12/22/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2014)
394 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 393 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT NON−APPEALING PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PARTIES ON REMAND filed byCity and

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 58 of 62

12/19/2014 12/19/2014 01/02/2015
01/07/2015 01/09/2015 01/15/2015
01/21/2015 04/03/2015 04/06/2015 08/03/2015 08/04/2015 08/05/2015

County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 393 ) (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 12/19/2014) Modified on 12/22/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2014)
395 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 393 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT NON−APPEALING PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PARTIES ON REMAND by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 12/19/2014) Modified on 12/22/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 393 MOTION for an Order. Responses due by 1/2/2015. Replies due by 1/9/2015. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
396 RESPONSE (re 393 MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT NON−APPEALING PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PARTIES ON REMAND ) filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/2/2015) Modified on 1/5/2015 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2015)
397 NOTICE of Appearance of counsel by Boris Reznikov (Reznikov, Boris) (Filed on 1/7/2015) Modified on 1/8/2015 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2015)
398 REPLY in support (re 393 MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT NON−APPEALING PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PARTIES ON REMAND filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Ofierski, Rafal) (Filed on 1/9/2015) Modified on 1/12/2015 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
399 CLERK'S NOTICE Jury Selection set for 4/27/2015 08:30 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Jury Trial set for 4/27/2015 08:30 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2015 03:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. This is a docket text entry only, there is no document associated with this notice. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
400 ORDER RE: STANDING OF PLAINTIFFS 393 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/21/2015) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
401 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Removal of Case from Trial Calendar filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Rolnick, Jonathan) (Filed on 4/3/2015) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
402 ORDER, Motions terminated: 401 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Removal of Case from Trial Calendar filed by City and County of San Francisco. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/7/2015 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 4/3/15. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2015) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
403 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Counsel shall file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement immediately for the conference scheduled to occur on Friday, August 7, 2015. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2015) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
404 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Stipulation to Continue filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Rolnick, Jonathan) (Filed on 8/4/2015) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
405 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Further Case Management Conference set for 11/20/2015 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. A joint case management conference statement shall be filed one week prior to the conference. (tfS,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 59 of 62

10/13/2015
11/13/2015
11/17/2015 11/18/2015 01/15/2016
01/20/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/25/2016

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2015) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
406 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 10/13/2015) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
407 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 11/13/2015) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
408 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Further Case Management Conference set for 11/22/2016 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Counsel shall file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement one week prior to the conference. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2015) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
409 AMENDED CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Further Case Management Conference set for 1/22/2016 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
410 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/15/2016) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
411 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41 AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE filed by Jon Gray. (Jaffe, Jordan) (Filed on 1/20/2016) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
412 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 1/21/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2016) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
413 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Further Case Management Conference Re: Settlement Distribution set for 1/22/2016 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2016) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
414 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Susan Illston: Further Case Management Conference held on 1/22/2016.Total Time in Court 4. Court Reporter Name n/a. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/25/2016) (Entered: 01/25/2016)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 60 of 62

01/26/2016
01/27/2016 01/27/2016 02/12/2016
02/24/2016 03/21/2016
03/22/2016

415 Amended STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER of Dismissal filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 1/26/2016) Modified on 1/27/2016 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/2016)
416 PLEASE SEE DOCKET NUMBER 417 FOR THE CORRECT E−FILINGORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 415 Stipulation to Retain Jurisdiction over Distribution of Settlement Funds. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2016) Modified on 1/28/2016 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/27/2016)
417 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 415 Stipulation to Retain Jurisdiction over Distribution of Settlement Funds (with Judicial signature). (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2016) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
418 MOTION for Appointment of the Honorable James J. McBride as Master to Allocate and Distribute Settlement Fund Among Plaintiffs and Order filed by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. Motion Hearing set for 3/25/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 2/26/2016. Replies due by 3/4/2016. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/12/2016) Modified on 2/16/2016 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2016)
419 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/24/2016) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
420 CLERK'S NOTICE − Plaintiff was instructed to e.mail the word version of the proposed order associated with the motion re: settlement funds. To date, nothing has been sent to the court. Civil Local Rule 5−1(g) − Proposed orders submitted by an ECF user in an ECF case shall be filed in PDF format, and attached to the electronically filed document (e.g., stipulation or motion) to which they pertain. In addition, proposed orders shall be submitted in an approved processing format such as Word, Word Perfect or ASCII text, to the specific address on the Courts website for emailing proposed orders to the assigned judge. Proposed orders must conform to the particular requirements of the assigned judges standing orders.. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
421 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.), Set/Reset Deadlines as to 418 MOTION Appointment of Master . Motion Hearing set for 3/25/2016 10:00 AM (instead of 9:00 a.m.) in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2016) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 61 of 62

03/28/2016 03/28/2016
06/27/2016
06/30/2016
07/05/2016 07/06/2016 07/26/2016 07/26/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 08/09/2016
08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016

422 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Susan Illston: Motion Hearing held on 3/25/2016. Motion for Appointment of Special Master is granted.Total Time in Court 12. Court Reporter Name Debra Pas. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/28/2016) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
423 ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES MCBRIDE AS SPECIAL MASTER TO ALLOCATE AND ORDER DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS AMONGST PLAINTIFFS AND COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES 418 .(Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/28/2016) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
424 ORDER on Receipt of Special Masters Report. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 6/27/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/27/2016: # 1 Appendix Sealed Exhibit A) (tfS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/27/2016: # 2 Appendix cover letter) (tfS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2016)
425 Proposed Order re 424 Order, Application for Order to Unseal Special Master's Report and to Distribute Settlement Funds to Plaintiffs by Mercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers, Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 6/30/2016) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
426 ORDER on Distribution of Settlement Funds. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 7/1/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2016) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
427 PROOF OF SERVICE of Special Masters Report. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 7/6/2016) Modified on 7/7/2016 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2016)
428 ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** Letter dated 6/22/16 from James J. McBride, Special Master. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
429 ORDER RE: SPECIAL MASTER INQUIRY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/26/2016) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
430 Letter from Lynn A. Combs. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2016) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
431 AMENDED ORDER RE: SPECIAL MASTER INQUIRY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/29/2016) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
432 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Further Case Management Conference set for 8/12/2016 03:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Counsel shall file a joint case management conference statement on Thursday, 8/11/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2016) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
433 Letter from Lawrence Murray . (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/9/2016) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
434 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Susan Illston: Telephone Conference held on 8/9/2016.Total Time in Court 2 minutes. Court Reporter Name n/a. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2016) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
435 Declaration of Lawrence D. Murray in Response to Request by the court for Further Hearing on the Claims of late Filing by John Arita for a Separate Allocation of Settlement Proceeds filed byMercy Ambat, Zainabu Anderson, John Arita, Dennis Carter, Sharon Castillo, Joanna Crotty, Tequisha Curley, Alisa Davis−Zehner, Jeremy Dejusus, Marla Denzer, Patti Flynn, Teresa Fox, Tonyette Smith−Al Ghani, Gwendolyn Harvey−Noto, Tori Jackson, Lisa Janssen, Michael Jones, Jennifer Keeton, Olga Kincade, Richard Lee, Sandra Maclin−Gibson, Sukhwant Mann, Gloria Martin, Arturo Medrano, Marc Nuti, Kevin O'Shea, Martha Ortega, Anthony Peppers,

Case: 3:07-cv-3622 As of: 11/02/2016 06:18 PM PDT 62 of 62

08/10/2016 08/10/2016

Vincent Quock, Wendy Rodgers−Wells, Lana Slocum, Ernest Smith, Mattie Spires−Morgan, Kenneth Tan, Emiko Theodoridis, Felisha Thomas, Anjie Versher, Pamela Walker, Bonnie Westlin, Yvette Williams, Roland Zanie, Michael Zehner. (Murray, Lawrence) (Filed on 8/9/2016) Modified on 8/10/2016 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/2016)
8/12/16 case management conference is vacated. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2016) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
436 FINAL ORDER FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/10/2016) (Entered: 08/10/2016)

 
 Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 1 of 30

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MERCY AMBAT, and

Plaintiff,

No. 11-16746
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-03622-SI

ZAINABU ANDERSON; SHARON CASTILLO; JOANNA CROTTY; PATTI FLYNN; TERESA FOX; LISA JANSSEN; RICHARD LEE; GLORIA MARTIN; ANTHONY PEPPERS; MATTIE SPIRESMORGAN; YVETTE WILLIAMS; ROLAND ZANIE; PAMELA WALKER; GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO; JENNIFER KEETON; OLGA KINCADE; EMIKO THEODORIDIS; MARTHA ORTEGA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant-Appellee.

MERCY AMBAT, and

Plaintiff,

No. 11-16752
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-03622-SI

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 2 of 30

2 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

JON GRAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant-Appellee.

MERCY AMBAT, and

Plaintiff,

No. 11-17330
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-03622-SI

ZAINABU ANDERSON; SHARON CASTILLO; JOANNA CROTTY; PATTI FLYNN; TERESA FOX; LISA JANSSEN; RICHARD LEE; GLORIA MARTIN; ANTHONY PEPPERS; MATTIE SPIRESMORGAN; YVETTE WILLIAMS; ROLAND ZANIE; PAMELA WALKER; GWENDOLYN HARVEY-NOTO; JENNIFER KEETON; OLGA KINCADE; EMIKO THEODORIDIS; MARTHA ORTEGA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

OPINION

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant-Appellee.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 3 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 3
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013—San Francisco, California
Filed July 2, 2014
Before: Stephen S. Trott, Sidney R. Thomas, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Murguia
SUMMARY*
Employment Discrimination
The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco, and dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal in part, in a Title VII case in which deputies of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department challenged a policy prohibiting male deputies from supervising female inmates in the housing units of the Sheriff’s Department’s jails.
The panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County on sex discrimination claims and derivative claims and vacated the denial of summary
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 4 of 30

4 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
judgment to plaintiffs on those claims. The panel held that the County was unable to bear its burden of demonstrating that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was entitled to a “bona fide occupational qualification” defense. The panel concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether a reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and experience, led to the Sheriff’s adoption of the policy, such that it would be entitled to deference. There were also genuine issues of material fact as to whether excluding male deputies because of their sex was a legitimate substitute for excluding them because they were actually unfit to serve in the female housing pods.
The panel dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal from various evidentiary rulings because, in light of the panel’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, plaintiffs could not establish prejudice.
The panel affirmed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees as to settled claims.
The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on one plaintiff’s retaliation claims.
COUNSEL
Lawrence D. Murray (argued) and Robert C. Strickland, Murray & Associates, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Mercy Ambat, et al.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 5 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 5
Daniel H. Bromberg (argued) and Timothy A. Butler, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant John Gray.
Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney; Elizabeth S. Salveson, Chief Labor Attorney; and Rafal Ofierski, Deputy City Attorney (argued), San Francisco, California, for DefendantAppellee.
OPINION
MURGUIA, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs, current and former deputies of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (“SFSD”), appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco (the “County”) on their challenge to SFSD’s policy prohibiting male deputies from supervising female inmates in the housing units of SFSD’s jails. The district court concluded that SFSD’s policy did not violate Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination because it fell within the statute’s “bona fide occupational qualification” exception, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1). We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County on the sex discrimination claims and vacate the denial of summary judgment to plaintiffs on those claims.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In October 2006, SFSD implemented a new policy prohibiting male deputies from supervising female inmates in the housing units of the jails operated by the County (the “Policy”). Single-sex staffing policies in correctional

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 6 of 30

6 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
facilities are not new, and we have considered before whether such polices violate Title VII by impermissibly discriminating on the basis of sex. See Breiner v. Nevada Dep’t of Corr., 610 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding policy violated Title VII); Robino v. Iranon, 145 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding policy did not violate Title VII).
The adoption of the Policy coincided with SFSD’s plan to consolidate all of its female inmates within a single facility, County Jail 8 (“CJ8”). CJ8 has a “direct supervision” design, meaning that its housing units, or “pods,” are composed of cells or sleeping bays arrayed around a central congregation space. Each pod has two tiers and between 56 and 88 beds. At the center of the pod is a podium from which a deputy can see into common areas and into the cells and sleeping bays. Each pod is staffed by two deputies, one of whom remains at the podium while the other makes rounds. Female inmates fill some, but not all, of the available housing pods in CJ8. Even though CJ8 is not single-sex, all of its pods are singlesex. This is consistent with SFSD’s long-standing practice of segregating female and male inmates.
Although housing pods are single-sex, CJ8’s pod for inmates receiving medical or psychiatric care is not sexsegregated. Male deputies are not permitted under the Policy to work with female inmates in the housing pods; however, male deputies may be assigned to the mixed-sex medical pod or assigned to transport female inmates between CJ8 and other locations. Male deputies may also enter female housing pods in some circumstances, such as to assist with feeding female inmates.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 7 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 7
According to San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey (the “Sheriff”), who had held his position since 1980,1 he adopted the Policy for four reasons: (1) to protect the safety of female inmates from sexual misconduct perpetrated by male deputies, (2) to maintain the security of the jail in the face of female inmates’ ability to manipulate male deputies and of the deputies’ fear of false allegations of sexual misconduct by the inmates, (3) to protect the privacy of female inmates, and (4) to promote the successful rehabilitation of female inmates.
Of the four reasons the Sheriff claims led him to enact the Policy, he identified protecting the safety of inmates from sexual misconduct as the most important. As the County pointed out, between 2001 and 2009, SFSD investigated twelve complaints of sexual misconduct or inappropriate sexual relationships between a male deputy and a female inmate. Ten of those incidents occurred before the Policy was implemented in 2006, and two occurred after. Notably, four of the twelve incidents occurred in 2005, the year immediately preceding the implementation of the Policy. SFSD sustained the allegations of misconduct and disciplined deputies in two of the incidents: a 2001 incident in which a male deputy had an inappropriate relationship with a female inmate with the intent to “cultivate a sexual relationship” and a 2007 incident, after the Policy had been adopted, in which a male deputy was present during a female inmate’s strip search. Three additional investigations were followed by a deputy’s resignation; these concerned inappropriate contact or sex acts. SFSD also faced lawsuits in 2000 and 2005 alleging that male deputies had engaged in unlawful sexual misconduct with female inmates.
1 Sheriff Hennessey no longer holds this office.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 8 of 30

8 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
With this concern for inmate safety in mind, the Sheriff asserts that he considered three responses, apart from enacting the Policy, to the problem of protecting female inmates from sexual misconduct: (1) implementing additional screening of male deputies to determine whether they were likely to engage in sexual misconduct with female inmates, (2) installing additional surveillance cameras to monitor activities in CJ8’s housing pods, and (3) providing additional training to deputies. However, he claims to have rejected each of these alternatives as ineffective or unfeasible, so he proceeded to implement the Policy.
In July 2007, 35 deputies – a majority of whom were female – filed suit against the County, alleging that the policy constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov. Code § 12940. Title VII and FEHA both make it “unlawful, with narrow exceptions, ‘to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . sex.’” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1207 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).2 Plaintiffs claimed that the Policy directly caused them a variety of harms related to the conditions of their employment. For example, they claimed that staffing restrictions caused by the Policy resulted in loss of control over when overtime was available or required, loss of opportunities to develop career-enhancing experience, and loss of preferred shifts and regular days off
2 Because FEHA is interpreted consistently with Title VII, see Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000), we conduct our analysis of both federal and state claims according to Title VII case law.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 9 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 9
previously earned by seniority. Plaintiffs made additional claims based on their sex discrimination claims: for unlawful employment restrictions under Title VII and FEHA and for failure to prevent a violation of FEHA.
In response, the County first argued that any harm suffered by plaintiffs as a result of the Policy was exceedingly minor, or de minimis, and so was not actionable. Although it did not dispute that the Policy discriminates against deputies on the basis of sex, the County further argued that the discrimination that resulted from the Policy was permissible under the “bona fide occupational qualification” (“BFOQ”) exception to Title VII and FEHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(e)(1) (“[I]t shall not be . . . unlawful . . . for an employer to hire and employ employees . . . on the basis of . . . sex . . . in those certain instances where . . . sex . . . is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.”). Where courts have permitted sex-based staffing restrictions in corrections facilities, it has typically been because the courts concluded that sex was a BFOQ for the staff positions at issue. See, e.g., Robino, 145 F.3d at 1111; Everson v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 391 F.3d 737, 761 (6th Cir. 2004).
Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court ruled that the County was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ discrimination claims because it had made out a valid BFOQ defense. See Ambat v. City of S.F., 693 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1141 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“Ambat I”). The district court “emphasiz[ed] that [it] is not charged with determining whether the Policy was the best means of addressing the problems the Sheriff and Undersheriff [Jan Dempsey] were seeking to remedy. Rather, the [district court’s] task is limited to determining whether the Sheriff’s

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 10 of 30

10 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
actions were lawful.” Id. at 1138-39. The district court also granted summary judgment to the County on plaintiffs’ Title VII and FEHA claims that were derivative of their discrimination claims. Id. at 1142. Because it had granted the County’s motion, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on these claims. Id. at 1141.
II. Title VII Claim
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County and denial of summary judgment to plaintiffs on their employment discrimination claims. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). “In doing so we are governed by the same principles as the district court: whether, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact, so that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emp. Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 733 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004)).
We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County on plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claims and derivative claims. The County was not entitled to summary judgment because it was unable to bear its burden of demonstrating that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was entitled to a BFOQ defense. Because the district court’s conclusion that the County was entitled to a BFOQ defense was also the basis for its denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, we also vacate the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 11 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 11
A. De Minimis Harm
Because the district court concluded that the County was entitled to a BFOQ defense, it did not rule on whether the County was entitled to a de minimis harm defense. We decline to rule on this defense in the first instance.
B. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification Defense
Although Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex in most instances, it permits discrimination where “sex . . . is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of [the defendant’s] particular business or enterprise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1); see also Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 (excepting discrimination “based upon a bona fide occupational qualification” from prohibition against employment discrimination). For example, Title VII would not compel a producer to audition men for a female role in a film, because being female could be a BFOQ for playing that role. See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(2).
Nevertheless, “[t]he BFOQ defense is written narrowly, and [the Supreme Court] has read it narrowly.” Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 201 (1991) (citations omitted). A BFOQ can be established only by “objective, verifiable requirements [that] concern job-related skills and aptitudes.” Id. at 201.
When the district court granted summary judgment to the County, it did so on the basis that being female was a BFOQ for supervising female inmates in CJ8. In reaching its conclusion, the district court granted considerable deference

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 12 of 30

12 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
to the judgment of the Sheriff, who had asserted that the Policy was necessary to protect the safety of female inmates, the security of the jails, the privacy of female inmates, and the ability of female inmates to be rehabilitated. Ambat I, 693 F. Supp. 2d at 1135. Because protecting these interests was part of the normal operation of San Francisco’s jails, and because the Sheriff had determined that it was reasonably necessary to keep men out of supervisory roles in female housing pods in order to protect these interests, the district court reasoned that the County had proven that being female was indeed a BFOQ under these limited circumstances. Id. at 1141.
Soon after the district court granted summary judgment, we considered a similar Title VII claim in Breiner. At issue there was a policy implemented by the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) that prohibited men from serving as correctional lieutenants in a women’s prison. 610 F.3d at 1205. The policy was implemented in the wake of a scandal arising from the prison’s “uninhibited sexual environment,” which had resulted in a female inmate’s becoming pregnant. Id. at 1204–05. The NDOC justified its policy on three bases: “(1) male correctional lieutenants are likely to condone sexual abuse by their male subordinates; (2) male correctional lieutenants are themselves likely to sexually abuse female inmates; and (3) female correctional lieutenants possess an ‘instinct’ that renders them less susceptible to manipulation by inmates and therefore better equipped to fill the correctional lieutenant role.” Id. at 1211. We reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to NDOC because
NDOC ha[d] not met its burden of showing “a basis in fact” for concluding that all male correctional lieutenants would tolerate sexual

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 13 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 13
abuse by their subordinates; that all men in the correctional lieutenant role would themselves sexually abuse inmates; or that women, by virtue of their gender, can better understand the behavior of female inmates. Nor ha[d] it refuted the viability of alternatives that would achieve that goal without impeding male employees’ promotional opportunities.
Id. at 1216 (quoting Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 335 (1977)).
In reaching our decision, we employed a two-pronged test for whether an employer had met its burden of proving that sex was a BFOQ:
To justify discrimination under the BFOQ exception, an employer must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) that the job qualification justifying the discrimination is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business; and 2) that [sex] is a legitimate proxy for the qualification because (a) it has a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all [men] lack the qualification, or . . . (b) it is impossible or highly impractical . . . to insure by individual testing that its employees will have the necessary qualifications for the job.”

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 14 of 30

14 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
Id. at 1210 (alterations in original) (quoting EEOC v. Boeing Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1214 (9th Cir. 1988)).3
After “surveying . . . decisions applying the BFOQ exception in the prison context,” we observed that “even in the unique context of prison employment, administrators seeking to justify a BFOQ must show ‘a high correlation between sex and ability to perform job functions.’” Id. at 1211–13 (quoting Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. at 202). We also recognized that it would be impossible to prove a BFOQ defense without “demonstrat[ing] that . . . alternative approaches . . . are not viable.” Id. at 1215.
In light of our decision in Breiner, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the district court’s summary judgment rulings on their sex discrimination claims. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Breiner was factually distinguishable from this case and so did not compel a different result. Ambat v. City of S.F., 2010 WL 3340549 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010) (“Ambat II”). Although we agree that the facts in these two cases are not identical, we conclude that Breiner controls our decision here and provides the correct analytic framework for evaluating the County’s motion for summary judgment. However, before we consider the justifications for the Policy that the County has advanced under our two-step BFOQ inquiry, we must first address the issue of the deference owed to the Sheriff’s judgment in implementing the Policy.
3 We initially adopted this test for the purpose of evaluating sex discrimination claims under Title VII in 1980. See Harriss v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 649 F.2d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 15 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 15
1. Deference to the Sheriff’s Judgment
“Judgments by prison administrators that ‘are the product of a reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and experience,’ are entitled to some deference.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1212 n.6 (quoting Robino, 145 F.3d at 1110); see also Henry v. Milwaukee Cnty., 539 F.3d 573, 580–81 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he administrators of female correctional facilities . . . are entitled to substantial deference when fashioning policies to further the goals of the facility. . . [H]owever, . . . the discretion accorded to these individuals . . . is [not] effectively unlimited. A defendant ultimately must introduce sufficient evidence to prove that the administrator’s judgment . . . is ‘the product of a reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and experience.’” (quoting Torres v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 859 F.2d 1523, 1532 (7th Cir. 1988))).
Deference often plays a significant role in supporting a BFOQ defense in the corrections context, and we do not downplay the importance of respecting the judgment of the officials who are most knowledgeable about how best to address the challenges posed by a particular institution. Nevertheless, such deference is not automatic. We require that such a judgment be the result of a “reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and experience,” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1214; otherwise, deference to that judgment cannot play a role in our BFOQ inquiry.
Here, the record demonstrates that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not such a process led to the Sheriff’s adoption of the Policy. In support of SFSD’s decision-making process, the Sheriff asserts that he discussed the Policy with Undersheriff Dempsey, the Chief of the

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 16 of 30

16 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
Custody Division, and jail commanders for “months.” He also claims to have consulted “incident reports of misconduct or alleged misconduct.” However, while the prevention of sexual misconduct was offered by the Sheriff as his primary reason for adopting the Policy, SFSD did not conduct any internal surveys or studies to determine the extent of that misconduct. Neither the Sheriff nor Undersheriff Dempsey attempted to consult the deputies directly responsible for supervising the inmates in order to learn from their front-line experience. Further, the Sheriff testified that he did not consult any outside sources – not even his counterparts in other jurisdictions who may have considered similar policies – with the exception that the Undersheriff communicated to him that she had contacted an uncertain number of other California sheriff’s departments to ask about whether they had implemented similar policies. The Sheriff also testified that he had read about incidents of sexual abuse in the Michigan prison system, but that he did not do so until after the Policy was implemented and that his reading “reinforced” rather than informed his decision to implement the Policy.
Determining whether a corrections official is entitled to deference is a fact-intensive and case-specific inquiry; accordingly, it is generally within the discretion of the district court to determine which factors are relevant. The district court observed that it had “uncovered no case holding that a correctional official must undertake a particular type of study or consultation,” Ambat I, 693 F. Supp. 2d at 1138 (emphasis in original), and we are not arriving at a contrary holding. That is to say, we are not concluding that the decision-making process supporting a discriminatory policy needs to take any particular form. However, it is significant that the extent of the Sheriff’s efforts to ensure that his judgment was the result of available information and experience contrasts sharply

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 17 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 17
with the efforts undertaken by other officials implementing similar policies that have withstood Title VII challenges on BFOQ grounds. See, e.g., Robino, 145 F.3d at 1111 (“To comply with an EEOC settlement, [corrections officials] conducted an extensive survey of post duties before determining which posts should be designated female-only.”); Everson, 391 F.3d at 741–45 (describing how three studies were conducted, including one pursuant to a settlement with the DOJ); cf. Torres, 859 F.2d at 1531–32 (holding that prison officials were required to “innovate” in order to serve the rehabilitative interests of the female inmates, because empirical studies concerning the rehabilitation of female inmates “simply did not exist” at the time).
The district court appears to have granted the Sheriff’s judgment deference based primarily on his substantial qualifications, rather than on the characteristics of the decision-making process itself. This reasoning is not consistent with our precedent, which conditions deference on whether the decision-making process itself was reasoned and well-informed. See Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1214; Robino, 145 F.3d at 1110. While we need not decide precisely how “reasoned” the decision-making process must be, nor how much of the “available information and experience” a corrections official must consider before implementing a facially discriminatory policy, the record before us now clearly exhibits a genuine dispute over whether the Policy resulted from a “reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and experience.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1214 (quoting Robino, 145 F.3d at 1110). Considering the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as we must on the County’s motion for summary judgment, a trier of fact could conclude that the Sheriff’s judgment was not preceded by a decision-making process that

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 18 of 30

18 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
was sufficiently reasoned in proportion to the seriousness of imposing the Policy. Similarly, a trier of fact could also conclude that the seriousness of imposing the Policy required the Sheriff to make a greater effort to avail himself of the information and experience readily available to him – such as by conducting relevant surveys or studies, as in Robino and Everson, or by consulting with officials in other jurisdictions who had considered or implemented policies like the one he ultimately implemented, as plaintiffs suggest.
Thus, because a trier of fact considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs could conclude that the decision-making process was either insufficiently reasoned or insufficiently based on available information and experience, the County cannot meet its burden of showing that the Sheriff’s judgment is entitled to deference as a matter of law, and the County may not rely on such deference in meeting its burden of showing that there are no genuine disputes of fact as to whether it can satisfy our two-step BFOQ inquiry.
2. Job Qualifications Reasonably Necessary to the Essence of Operating San Francisco’s Jails
Although deference to the Sheriff’s judgment cannot play a role in our analysis, it is still necessary for us to consider each rationale that has been offered by the County in order to determine whether the County is able to satisfy our BFOQ inquiry based solely on the evidence in the record. We must consider each of the four rationales offered by the County in order to determine (1) whether any rationale suggests a job qualification reasonably necessary to the essence of operating SFSD’s jails, and, if so, (2) whether sex is a legitimate proxy for determining whether a deputy actually has that qualification. Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1210.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 19 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 19
In considering each of the County’s rationales, the County easily meets its burden, as a matter of law, of demonstrating that there are job qualifications derived from the four justifications that are reasonably necessary to the essence of operating SFSD’s jails. Each of the four justifications that the Sheriff claims drove his decision to implement the Policy – protecting female inmates from sexual misconduct by male deputies, maintaining jail security, protecting inmate privacy, and preserving the ability of female inmates to rehabilitate – is essential to the operation of a corrections facility and has been recognized as justifying facially discriminatory policies in other contexts. See Dothard, 433 U.S. at 335 (security); Robino, 145 F.3d at 1111 (safety, security, privacy, rehabilitation); Everson, 391 F.3d at 750 (safety, security, privacy, rehabilitation).
Based on these important rationales for the Policy, we have no difficulty in identifying four “job qualification[s] . . . reasonably necessary to the essence of” operating SFSD’s jails, any of which would satisfy the first prong of our test. Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1210. These qualifications corresponding to the four rationales are (1) not posing a threat to the safety of female inmates due to a likelihood of perpetrating sexual misconduct against them; (2) not posing a threat to jail security; (3) not posing a threat to female inmates’ privacy; and (4) not posing a threat to female inmates’ ability to rehabilitate. We now consider each of these four qualifications under the second prong of our test to determine whether there is any genuine dispute of material fact as to whether being male is a “legitimate proxy” for any of them.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 20 of 30

20 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
3. Whether Sex Is a Legitimate Proxy for Reasonably Necessary Job Qualifications
The County may show that excluding all male deputies is a “legitimate proxy” for excluding deputies who lack one of the four qualifications if there is (a) “a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all [men] lack the qualification” or (b) “it is impossible or highly impractical . . . to insure by individual testing” whether or not a male deputy has the qualification. Id. at 1210 (alteration in original). We also note that it is impossible to satisfy the “legitimate proxy” prong if there is no “concrete, logical basis for concluding that gender restrictions are ‘reasonably necessary,’” id. at 1212, or if alternatives have not been reasonably considered and refuted, id. at 1216.
The County asserts that the primary reason for the Sheriff’s adoption of the Policy was to protect the safety of female inmates by reducing the possibility of sexual harassment and abuse by male deputies. While there is no question that this is an extremely important interest, the County has not met its burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute over whether excluding men from supervisory positions in female housing units is a legitimate proxy for requiring that deputies in those positions not pose a threat to the safety of female inmates. More specifically, at this stage of the proceeding, the County has not shown that the Sheriff had “a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all” male deputies were likely to engage in sexual misconduct with female inmates, nor has it shown that “it is impossible or highly impractical . . . to insure by individual testing” that a male deputy does not pose such a threat. Id. at 1210.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 21 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 21
The statistics on sexual misconduct perpetrated by male deputies against female inmates in SFSD’s jails are deeply troubling. The record shows that in the five years preceding the implementation of the Policy, ten allegations of sexual misconduct were made; two more allegations were made the year after the Policy was implemented. A substantial portion of these allegations were sustained or were followed by a deputy’s resignation. We also accept that it is reasonable to assume, as the County argues, that other instances of misconduct may have gone unreported.
Nevertheless, these statistics by themselves do not prove that “all or substantially all” male deputies are likely to perpetrate sexual misconduct. To suggest that all or most male deputies pose such a threat would amount to “the kind of unproven and invidious stereotype that Congress sought to eliminate from employment decisions when it enacted Title VII.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1211.
On this record, the County is also unable to show that there is no genuine dispute as to whether it is impossible or highly impractical to insure by individual testing that a male deputy does not have a propensity to perpetrate sexual misconduct. We have observed that background checks, which all deputies must undergo, are among “prison administrators[’] . . . multiple resources . . . to ensure compliance with institutional rules.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1215. As the County points out, peace officer candidates must also undergo psychological examinations.
While conceding that background checks and psychological testing are used for the purpose of screening for a propensity to perpetrate sexual misconduct, the County suggests that such screening mechanisms are inadequate

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 22 of 30

22 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
because they are unable to detect all potential perpetrators. Removing every deputy with any potential for engaging in misconduct may be a laudable goal, but that goal is insufficient to justify a policy that discriminates in such broad strokes. Rather, we have observed that a BFOQ defense cannot be maintained if available testing offers “a practical reliable differentiation of the unqualified from the qualified applicant, [even if it is] not a perfect differentiation.” See E.E.O.C. v. L.A. Cnty., 706 F.2d 1039, 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The record before us does not resolve the genuine dispute over whether the tests that are presently used or that could be used by SFSD would permit it to make a practical reliable differentiation between those who are likely to engage in sexual misconduct and those who are not.
The County also argues that employing male deputies in the female housing pods poses a threat to jail security. In so arguing, it points to two specific assertions offered by the Sheriff. First, the Sheriff expressed concern that male deputies were particularly vulnerable to manipulation by female inmates, potentially leading them to overlook conduct in violation of jail regulations, such as smuggling contraband into the jail. Second, he claimed that the consequence of male deputies’ fear of being accused of sexual misconduct could be that those deputies would be unwilling to supervise female inmates as closely as necessary, leading to an even greater risk of female inmates being able to violate jail rules.
However, the record on summary judgment is insufficient to demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to whether “all or substantially all” male deputies would be vulnerable to manipulation by female inmates or as to whether it would be “impossible or highly impractical” to test for whether a

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 23 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 23
male deputy is manipulable. The County has introduced no evidence, even in the declarations of SFSD officials, that would support this conclusion. Likewise, the County has failed to demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute over whether “all or substantially all” male deputies would be influenced by fear of false allegations, or over whether it would be “impossible or highly impractical” to test for such behavior. The Sheriff himself acknowledged that he has “no idea” how widespread this purported problem is. He also admitted that he is unaware of whether any efforts were made within SFSD to explore non-discriminatory alternatives to the Policy for the purpose of mitigating the potential effect of false allegations leveled at male deputies. Thus there is a genuine question as to whether the County is able to “refute[] the viability of [non-discriminatory] alternatives.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1216.
The County’s third justification for the Policy is protecting the privacy interests of female inmates. However, the record does not demonstrate that there is an actual risk of female inmates’ privacy being compromised by male deputies. SFSD has policies in place to prevent male deputies from taking on duties, such as strip searches, that might violate the privacy of female inmates. The inmates are required to remain clothed at all times, except when showering. When showering or using the toilet, inmates’ bodies are covered by a privacy screen.
The Sheriff claims that the use of privacy screens compromises jail security, but there is a genuine dispute as to whether privacy screens actually do compromise jail security where, as here, the screens remained in use even after the Policy was adopted. See Torres, 859 F.2d at 1526 (finding that a BFOQ defense could not be sustained over privacy

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 24 of 30

24 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
concerns where “the [district] court noted that [corrections officials] continued to allow [female] inmates to use privacy cards even after the BFOQ program [requiring female guards] had been installed, thus rebutting the argument that the presence of male guards reduced observation of the inmates”).
The County’s final justification for the Policy is promoting the rehabilitation of female inmates. The Sheriff asserts that he was concerned that surveillance by male deputies could traumatize female inmates, particularly those who had suffered physical or sexual abuse in the past. The County introduced evidence that a disproportionately high number of female inmates had suffered such abuse. Nevertheless, there is a genuine dispute over whether excluding male deputies is a legitimate proxy for excluding deputies who would interfere with female inmates’ rehabilitation.
A “staffing restriction . . . must match . . . ‘job functions’ with a high degree of specificity to be found reasonably necessary.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1213 (quoting Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. at 202). In this situation, SFSD has separated the functions of supervising the inmates in the housing pods from the functions of providing rehabilitative programming to the inmates, such as through a high school program, support groups, and parenting classes. Further, there is no evidence in the record that the individuals staffing the rehabilitative programs, some of which are staffed by independent contractors, are themselves required to be female. If female inmates were supervised by men in their rehabilitative programs while the Policy was in effect, that fact alone would defeat the County’s argument that excluding men from supervisory roles was necessary to promote female

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 25 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 25
inmates’ rehabilitation. See Henry, 539 F.3d at 582-83 (“[I]nconsistencies in implementation cast a significant doubt on whether the policy is reasonably necessary.”). As plaintiffs observe, there is also conflicting expert testimony over whether isolating female inmates from men might in fact impede the inmates’ efforts at rehabilitation; for example, plaintiffs’ expert discussed research indicating that the presence of male officers might itself promote the rehabilitation of female inmates.
C. Conclusion
The justifications offered by the County in support of the Policy each speak to extremely important concerns, and the Sheriff is to be commended for his attention to the welfare of female inmates in San Francisco’s jails. However, the fact that the Policy seeks to advance such important goals as inmate safety is not, by itself, sufficient to permit discrimination on the basis of sex. When moving for summary judgment, the County bears the heavy burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether excluding male deputies because of their sex is a legitimate substitute for excluding them because they are actually unfit to serve in the female housing pods. On the record before us, the County has not made such a showing.
Discrimination on the basis of sex is almost always disfavored under Title VII. Thus, even in a correctional setting, our test for whether an employer is entitled to a BFOQ defense – that is, whether an employer has shown that discrimination is “reasonably necessary,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(e)(1) – is purposefully difficult to satisfy. It is even more difficult when an employer moves for summary judgment and so must show that there are no genuine disputes that would

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 26 of 30

26 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
prevent it from satisfying our two-step inquiry as a matter of law. While we do not reach the issue of whether the County could ultimately prevail on plaintiffs’ discrimination claims, the factual disputes in this case prevent the County from prevailing at this stage.
We are mindful that deference often plays a significant role in allowing a defendant to meet its burden of proving that it is entitled to a BFOQ defense in the corrections context, and we do not downplay the importance of courts deferring to the judgment of officials like the Sheriff, who has tremendous experience and expertise with respect to all aspects of operating San Francisco’s jails. But, again, such deference is not automatic, no matter how extensive an official’s qualifications. A discriminatory employment policy is an extraordinary response to a workplace problem, and our principle of deferring to the judgments of corrections officials has its roots in the expectation that officials have made commensurate efforts to determine that a discriminatory policy is a necessary response and the only viable response. Thus, while we don’t presume to be able to second-guess an official’s judgment, we do require that such a judgment be “‘the product of a reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and experience.’” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1212 n.6 (quoting Robino, 145 F.3d at 1110).
We need not and do not reach a conclusion about whether the Sheriff’s judgment was the result of such a reasoned process. However, on the record before us, we cannot find as matter of law that the Policy resulted from such a process. Therefore, on summary judgment, the County may not rely on deference to the Sheriff’s judgment in order to meet its burden of proving that it was entitled to a BFOQ defense. In the absence of deference to the Sheriff’s judgment, the

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 27 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 27
County is also unable to meet its burden of proving that there is no issue of material fact as to whether its policy of excluding all male deputies from the female housing units is a legitimate proxy for excluding only those deputies that truly pose a threat to the important interests SFSD rightfully seeks to protect. The district court’s grant of summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claims and other claims predicated thereon is REVERSED.
Because the district court denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion on the same grounds that it granted the County’s motion, the district court’s denial of summary judgment to plaintiffs on these same claims is VACATED. This case is REMANDED for further proceedings on these claims.
III. Evidentiary Claims
Prior to the district court’s ruling on the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ discrimination claims, plaintiffs made numerous objections to evidence offered by the County in support of its motion – particularly to declarations submitted by SFSD officials. The district court overruled three of the objections; it did not explicitly rule on the remainder of the objections but relied on the challenged evidence in its summary judgment order. Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s explicit and implicit evidentiary rulings in the County’s favor.
“We review the district court’s evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion, and the appellant is . . . required to establish that the error was prejudicial.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because we reverse the district

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 28 of 30

28 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
court’s grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs’ discrimination claims, plaintiffs cannot establish prejudice; plaintiffs will have the opportunity to challenge the district court’s evidentiary rulings if they are unsuccessful on remand. Plaintiffs’ evidentiary challenges are DISMISSED.
IV. Attorney’s Fees
In addition to their sex discrimination claims, plaintiffs filed various retaliation claims, also under Title VII and FEHA. The district court granted summary judgment to the County as to all but three plaintiffs, and the County settled the remaining claims. Plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees in the amount of $127,447.26 for having settled these claims. After an in camera review of plaintiffs’ counsel’s time sheets, the district court awarded $8,925 for “retaliation-specific work,” observing that plaintiffs could not recover “fees for time devoted to litigating the gender discrimination claims.” Plaintiffs contend on appeal that the fee award is not commensurate with the extent of their success.
“[I]n a lawsuit where the plaintiff presents different claims for relief that ‘involve a common core of facts’ or are based on ‘related legal theories,’ the district court should not attempt to divide the request for attorney’s fees on a claim-by-claim basis. Instead, the court must . . . ‘focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.’” McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983)). In sum, “the district court should adequately explain the reasonable number of hours and hourly rate it uses in calculating the fee, and appropriately adjust the award to account for [a plaintiff’s] limited success

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 29 of 30

ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 29
on claims and damages, and for any public benefit derived from his suit.” Id. at 1105.
The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ success was minor relative to the scope of the sex discrimination action, and it awarded fees accordingly. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002), we see no indication that the district court abused its discretion in making the award that it did. Under the district court’s own reasoning, plaintiffs will be entitled to a substantially greater award if they are successful on remand. The district court’s award of attorney’s fees is AFFIRMED.
V. Gray’s Retaliation Claims
John Gray was among the plaintiffs who claimed retaliation and against whom the district court granted summary judgment; the district court was correct in its judgment. Gray disseminated defamatory statements about several individuals, amounting to what the SFSD deemed “[c]onduct, on or off duty, which reflects adversely on the SFSD.” As a result, he was terminated. Gray is unable to rebut the County’s evidence that his conduct was the nonretaliatory motive for his termination, Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 865 (9th Cir. 2010), nor can he “produce direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated” the County, McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, his argument that his defamatory statements, because they were made in connection with an earlier employment-related arbitration, are protected by California law from being used as evidence in this action is without merit. See Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg,

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 30 of 30

30 ANDERSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., 728 P.2d 1202, 1208 (Cal. 1986). The district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County on Gray’s retaliation claims is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, DISMISSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-2 Page: 1 of 5

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Office of the Clerk 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings

Judgment • This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case. Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached decision because all of the dates described below run from that date, not from the date you receive this notice.

Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2) • The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper.

Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1) Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)

(1) A. •
•

Purpose (Panel Rehearing): A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist: ► A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision; ► A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which
appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or ► An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not
addressed in the opinion. Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.

B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc) • A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 08/2013

1

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-2 Page: 2 of 5

► Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
► The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or ► The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another
court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.
(2) Deadlines for Filing: • A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case, the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate. • See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the due date). • An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2.
(3) Statement of Counsel • A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsel’s judgment, one or more of the situations described in the “purpose” section above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly.
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)) • The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text. • The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being challenged. • An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length limitations as the petition. • If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 08/2013

2

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-2 Page: 3 of 5

• The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance found at Form 11, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms.
• You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a pro se litigant or an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, file one original petition on paper. No additional paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise.
Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1) • The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. • See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms.
Attorneys Fees • Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys fees applications. • All relevant forms are available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms or by telephoning (415) 355-7806.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari • Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at www.supremecourt.gov
Counsel Listing in Published Opinions • Please check counsel listing on the attached decision. • If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in writing within 10 days to: ► Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526; St. Paul, MN 55164-0526 (Attn: Jean Green, Senior Publications Coordinator); ► and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF system by using "File Correspondence to Court," or if you are an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the Court one copy of the letter.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 08/2013

3

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-2 Page: 4 of 5

Form 10. Bill of Costs ................................................................................................................................(Rev. 12-1-09)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BILL OF COSTS

Note:

If you wish to file a bill of costs, it MUST be submitted on this form and filed, with the clerk, with proof of service, within 14 days of the date of entry of judgment, and in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. A late bill of costs must be accompanied by a motion showing good cause. Please refer to FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and 9th Circuit Rule 39-1 when preparing your bill of costs.

v.

9th Cir. No.

The Clerk is requested to tax the following costs against:

Cost Taxable under FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 9th Cir. R. 39-1
Excerpt of Record Opening Brief Answering Brief

REQUESTED Each Column Must Be Completed

ALLOWED To Be Completed by the Clerk

No. of Pages per Cost per

Docs.

Doc.

Page*

TOTAL COST

$

$

$

$

$

$

No. of Pages per Cost per

Docs.

Doc.

Page*

TOTAL COST

$

$

$

$

$

$

Reply Brief

$

$

$

$

Other**

$

$

$

$

TOTAL: $

TOTAL: $

* Costs per page may not exceed .10 or actual cost, whichever is less. 9th Circuit Rule 39-1.
** Other: Any other requests must be accompanied by a statement explaining why the item(s) should be taxed pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. Additional items without such supporting statements will not be considered.

Attorneys' fees cannot be requested on this form.

Continue to next page.

Case: 11-16746 07/02/2014 Form 10. Bill of Costs - Continued

ID: 9153496 DktEntry: 44-2 Page: 5 of 5

I,

, swear under penalty of perjury that the services for which costs are taxed

were actually and necessarily performed, and that the requested costs were actually expended as listed.

Signature ("s/" plus attorney's name if submitted electronically) Date
Name of Counsel:

Attorney for:

(To Be Completed by the Clerk) Date

Costs are taxed in the amount of $ Clerk of Court By:

, Deputy Clerk