Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 20

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN Mark E. Merin, SEN. 043849 2 Jeffrey L Schwarzschild. SEN. 192086
2001 P Street, Suite 100'
3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telllhone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 Email: mar!\:@markmerin.com

RiGU'liAL
;tzr-.,~ L' l<:::-. £~.o'J.
·jAN 1 7 2006 ... ' '.

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6 w.o-()Oo-

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

9

NORTIIERN DISTRI~.,F C~.:.~.I.,FORNIA
-oO~ .~~!::,'

10

11

DANIEL SCHAFFER, On behalf of himself and all those similarly situated;

CASE NO:

12

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13

Plaintiffs,

DEMA..1I!D FOR JURY TRIAL

14 y.

15

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

16

PLUMtv{ER, IN HIS INDNlDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ALAMEDA

17

COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES DOES 1 THROUGH 50, AND ROES 1 THROUGH

18 20, INCLUSNE,

19

Defendants.

20

21 PLAINTIFF .'\LLEGES:

22

INTRODUCTION

23

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and punitive damages

24 against the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

25 PLUMMER, Individually and in His Official Capacity, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S

26 DEPUTIES sued undertheir.fictitious names as DOES 1THROUGH 50, and ROES 1THROUGH

27 20, for violations of plaintiff's constitutional rights resulting from application of ALAMEDA

28 County's and the Sheriffs policies, practices, and customs concerning the use ofstrip searches and

DANIEL SCHAFFEJl, et aL v, HU:MBClLDT C,:QlTJ\'1.'Y, ~t Ill.

h.so I ofl4

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 2 of 20

1 visual body cavity searches in ALAMEDA County Jails. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring illegal

2 defendants' policy ofsubjecting detainees in their custody to strip and visual body cavity searches

3 before they are atTaigned atld without having any reasonable suspicion that the searches will be

4 productive of contraband Plaintiff further seeks an order declaring illegal deffmdatlts' policy of

5 conducting the complained of searches in at'eas which can be and are observed by persons not

6 participating in the searches.

7

Defendants' strip search atld visual body cavity search policies, practices, atld customs

8 violate those rights of plaintiff, and all those he represents, that are secured by the Fourth and

9 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution atld entitles plaintiff, and all those

10 similarly situated, to recover datnages lIDder the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983),

11

Additionally, plaintiff includes, on behalf of himself atld on behalf of all those he

12 represents, supplemental claims under California state law against defendants: 1) for violation of

13 California Penal Code § 4030 which prohibits pre-arraignment strip searches of most

14 misdemeatlatlts, requires such searches be conducted in atl area ofprivacy, atld be pre-approved

15 in ,vriting by a supervisors; and, 2) for violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil

16 Code § 52 and § 52.1(b), which provides for civil penalties in cases were persons are coerced to

17 give up their constitutional or statutory rights. California Penal Code § 4030 provides for

18 minimum damages of$I,OOO for each illegal search and the Batle Act entitles plaintitI, atld each

19 of those he represents, to receive statutory minimum datnages of $4,000 per violation.

20

JURISDICTION

21

This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and

22 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is fOlIDded upon 28 USC 23 §§ 1331 and 1341(3) atld (4) and the aforementioned statutory atld constitutional provisions. 24 Under 28 USC § 1367(a) the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims alleged

25 herein,

26

PARTIES

27

1. Plaintiff D&1>ITEL SCHAFFER, atld all those similarly situated, are, and at all

28 material times herein, were citizens of the United States atld residents of the state of Califomia

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 3 of 20

who were arrested within the penod beginning two (2) years before the filing of tills Complaint,

2 and continuing to this date, and who were subjected to strip andlor visual body cavity searches at

3 an ALA1vfEDA County Jail (hereinafter referred to as the "ALAlvfEDA County Jail"), prior to

4 being arraigned andlor without the defendants first having, and recordi.ng in writing, a reasonable

5 suspicion that the searches would be productive of contraband or weapons.

6

2. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER is, and at

7 .all material times referred to herein, was the duly elected Sheriff of the ALAMEDA COUNTY,

8 responsible for administering the Jail facilities and tor making, overseeing, and implementing the

9 policies, practices, and customs challenged herein relating to the operation of the ALAMEDA
10 County Jail. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

11

3. DefeJ;ldants ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIES sued herein by their

12 fictitious names (Does 1 through 50) are all deputies who, as part oftheir duties at the ALAMEDA

13 County Jail, subj ected plaintiff, and all those he represents, to pre-arraigtunent strip andlor visual 14 body cavity searches without having, andlor recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the

15 searches would be productive of contraband or weapons andlor conducted the complained of

16 searches so that they could be observed by persons not participating in the searches.

17

4. At all material times mentioned herein, each ofthe defendants was acting under the

18 color oflaw, to wit, under color ofstatutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages

19 of the state of California, the ALA.11EDA COUNTY andlor the Alameda County Sheriffs

20 Department.

21

5. Defendants whose names are not now known and who are sued by the fictitious

22 names ofROES I through 20, are all agents and/or employees of one or another ofthe other named

23 defendants who ordered, condoned, authorized, covered up, or were oth.erwise associated with the

24 implemelltation of the illegal policy and practices relating to strip searches complained ofherein.

25

6. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY is, and at all material times referred to herein,

26 was a division ofthe state ofCaliiornia, that maintained or permitted an official policy or custom

27 or practice causing or permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs complained of herein,

28 which wrongs damaged plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, as herein alleged. Plaintiffs

DANIEL SCHAFfER, et 111. v, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et a1.

hscJofVl ~SACTIONCOM?t~

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 4 of 20

1 allegations against the COUNTY are based on acts and omissions of the SHERIFF and his

2 DEPUTIES and on acts and omissions of persons who are COUNTY employees, and on the

3 COUNTY's breach of its duty to protect plaintiff, and all those he represents, from the wrongful

4 conduct of said persons and employees.

5

7. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER, in his

6 Individual and Official Capacity, also maintained or pennitted an official policy or custom of

7 causing or permitting the OCClUl'enCe of the types of wrongs complained of herein, which wrongs

8 damaged plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, as herein alleged.

9

8. Class action plaintiffs are those similarly situated who, during lheperiod beginning

10 two (2) years before the filing of this Complaint, an.d continuing to this date, were subjected by

11 defendants to pre-arraignment strip andlor visual body cavity searches without defendants having,

12 and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the searches would be productive of

13 contraband ot weapons, andlor who were strip searched prior to arraigmnent in an area that was

14 observable by persons not participating in the search.

15

FACTS

16

9. On or about August 13,2005, plaintiffDANIEL SCHAFFER (hereinafter referred

17 to as "plaintiff') was arrested allegedly on a traffic warrant and transported to an ALAMEDA

18 COUNT:!" Jail where, prior to posting bail, he was dressed-in and taken to an area where he was

19 forced to submit to a strip search in a group with several other people who were not participating

20 in the search.

21

10. Within six (6) months of the aforesaid strip search, plaintiff filed a group

22 Government Ton Claim for himself an.d fot all persons similarly situated (a copy of said claim is

23 attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorpotated herein to the extent relevant by this reference).

24 Plaintiffs group claim was rejected on or about September 27,2005, allowing the filing of this

25 class action complaint on state statute and constitutional violations.

26

11. Plaintiffis infonned and believes, and therefore alleges, that defelldants routinely

27 follow their policy, practice, and custom of slibjecting pre-arraignment detajnees, including

28 plaintiff, and all those he represents, to strip and visual body cavity searches without first having,

CLASS ACTION COMl'WNT

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 5 of 20

1 and recording in writing, a reasonable suspidon that the search will be productive of contraband

2 or weapons. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that defendants

3 routinely follow their policy, practice, and custom of conducting the complained of searches in the

4 presence of persons not participating in the searches.

5

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants have the

6 ability to identify all such similarly situated plaintiffs, specifically those who, while in defendants'

7 custody, at the ALAMEDA Coumy Jail within two (2) years prior to the filing of this Complaint,

8 were subjected to strip searches andior visual body cavity searches prior to arraignment without

9 defendants fITst having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the searches would

10 be productive of contraband or weapons.

11

13. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLlJl\.1:MER is

12 personally responsible for the promulgation and continuation of the strip search polity, practice,

13 and custom pursuant to which plaintiff, and those he represents, were subjected to strip searches.

14

14. As a result ofbeing subjected to the strip searches complained of herein, plaintiff,

15 and each of the persons similarly situated, suffered physical, mental, and emotional distress,

16 invasion of privacy, and violation of due process of law and state and federal statutory and 17 constitutional rights, and is entitled to recover damages according to proof but, at a minimum,

18 $1,000 as specified in California Penal Code § 4030(P) and $4,000 as specified in California Civil 19 Code § 52 and § 52.l(b).

20

CLASS CLAlMS

21

15, The strip and visual body cavity searches to which plaintiff, and all those similarly

22 situated, were subjected were performed pursuant to policies, practices, and customs ofdefendants

23 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER, AL~MEDA COUNTY, the

24 individual SHERlFF'S DEPUTlES sued herei.n by the fictitious names 1 through 50, and the

25 indivi.duals whose names are not now known and who are sued by the fictitious names of ROES

26 1 through 20. The searches complained of herein were performed without regard to the nature of

27 the alleged offenses for which plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, had been arrested, without

28 regard to whether or not plaintiff, or those he represents, was eligible for cite and release under

DANIEL SC:HA.Ff5F~ €;I aL v. :truMBOLDT COCNIY, ~t al.

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 6 of 20

1 Penal Code § 853.6, without regard to whether ornotplaintiJf, and each ofthose similarly situated,

2 was eligible for and/or was released on his or her 0\\'11 recognizance. Furthermore, the searches

3 complained of herein were performed without defendants having a reasonable belief that the

4 plaintiff, or any of those similarly situated, so searched possessed weapons or contraband, and

5 those facts being articulated and recorded in a supervisor-approved document. Finally, the

6 searches complained of herein were performed without defendants taking reasonable precautions

7 to insure that plaintiff, and each of those similarly si.tuated, was searched in an area affording

8 privacy and was not observed by others not participating in the search.

9

16. Plaintiffbrings this action on his 0\\'11 behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly

10 situated pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11

17. The class is defined to include all persons who, in the period from and including

12 two (2) years prior to the filing ofthis Complaint, and continuing until this matter is adjudicated
13 and the practices complained of herein cease, were arrested and subj ected to a pre-arraignment

14 strip and/or visual body cavity search at the ALAMEDA County Jail without defendants first

15 having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion that the search would be productive of

16 contraband or weapons. The class also includes all those persons who were subjected to pre17 arraignment strip and/or visual body cavity searches in the presence of persons who were not

18 participating in said searches.

19

18. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the members of

20 the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Plaintiff does not know the

21 exact number of class members. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that

22 there are more than 40 persons per day who are arrested by defendants and/or in the custody of

23 defendants and are subjected to the searches complained ofherein as a result of defendants' policy,

24 practice, and custom relating to said searches_

25

19. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiff is

26 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there are many questions offact common to the

27 class including, but not limited to: (1) whether defendants routinely subject all persons arrested to

28 visual body cavity searches prior to arraignment whether or not they intend such persons to be

DANIEL SCHABFER. ~. ~J.. ". Hf~OLJ)T COl..r:N1Y. et 11.),.

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 7 of 20

1 housed in the ALAMEDA County Jail; (2) whether defendants routinely subject all persons

2 arrested to visual body cavity searches prior to arraignment if they intend such persons to be

3 housed in the ALMfEDA County Jail; (3) whether persons are subjected to sttip and/or visual

4 body cavity searches prior to arraignment without there being any reasonable suspicion, based on

5 specific or articulable facts, to believe any particular ilnestee has concealed drugs, weapons, and/or

6 contraband in bodily cavities which could be detected by means ofa strip and/or visual body cavity

7 search; (4) whether the strip and/or visual body cavity searches are conducted in an area ofprivacy

8 so that the searches cannot be observed by persons not participating in the searches; (5) whether

9 the strip and/or visual body cavity searches are conducted in groups; and, (5) whether the strip

10 andior visnal body cavity searches are reasonably related to defendants' penological interest to

11 maintain the security of the jail and whether or not there are less intrusive methods for protecting

12 any such interest.

13

20. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), plaintiff is

14 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that there are many questions oflaw common to the

15 class including, but not limited to: (1) whether defendants may perform strip and/or visual body

16 cavity searches on persons prior to their arraignment without reasonable suspicion, based on

17 specifi.c or articulable facts, to believe any particular prearraignment detainee has concealed dlUgS,

18 weapons and/or contraband which would likely be discovered by a strip and/or visual body cavity

19 search; (2) whether defendants may perfolm strip and/or visual body cavity searches on persons

20 without first reasonably relating the use of the subject search to defendants' penological interest

21 to mainta:n the security ofthe jail and determining ifthere is a less intrusive method to protect that

22 interest; (3) whether strip and/or visual body cavity searches may be conducted in areas where the

23 search can be observed by people not participating in the search without violating plaintiffs' State

24 and Federal constitutional rights and plaintiffs' State statutory rights; (4) whether or not

25 defendants' strip search policy and procedure is in accordance with the State and/or Federal

26 ConstitutlOn; (5) whether or not defendants' policy and procedure of conducting pre~arraignment

27 strip searches in groups violates plaintiffs' State and/or Federal Constitutional rights to privacy;

28 (6) whether or not plaintiffs' claims under Penal Code § 4030 are barred by the provisions of

P:;so' of14
cuss Amo~ COMl"1A.t:NT

lJS))C, Nol'1\)~ .1)iot,('\ct, C\\S¢ No.

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 8 of 20

1 Government Code § 844.6; and, (7) whether or not defendants have an immunity defense to

2 plaintiffs' claims under Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1, and whether or not those claims are actionable

3 in a class action.

4

21. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the claims of the

5 representative plaintiffis typical ofthe class. Plaintiffwas searched, prior to arraignment, without

6 reasonable suspicion that a strip or visual body cavity search would produce drugs, weapons o[

7 contraband (and without the facts supporting any such suspicion being articulated in a superviso["

8 approved writing). Representative plaintiff has the same interests and suffered the same type of

9 injuries as all of the class members. Plaintiffs claims arose because of defendants' policy,

10 practice, and custom of subjecting arrestees to strip and/or visual body cavity searches before

11 3naignment without having, and recording in writing, a reasonable suspicion tbat the search would

12 be productive of contraband or weapons. Each class member suffered actual damages as a result

13 ofbeing subjected to a strip and/or visual body cavity search. The actual damages suffered by the

14 representative plaintiff is similar in type and amount to tbe actual damages suffered by each class

15 member.

16

In accordan.eewith Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Rule 23(a), the representative

17 plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. Plaintiffs interests are consistent

18 with and not antagonistic to the interests of the class.

19

23. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(A),

20 prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk that

21 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class would

22 establish incompatible standards of con.duct for the parties opposing the complaint.

23

24. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(I)(B),

24 prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of

25 inconsistent adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as a

26 practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members of the class to

27 protect their interests.

28 \\\

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 9 of 20

25. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), plaintiff is

2 infonned and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants have acted on grounds generally

3 applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate the tinal injunctive or declaratory relief with

4 respect to the class as a whole.

5

26. In accordance with Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), this class action

6 is superior to other available methods for the fair and equitable adjudication of the controversy

7 between the parties. Plaintiff is infoillIed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the interests

8 of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low, in

9 that most class members would be unable individually to prosecute any action at all. Plaintiff also

10 is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the amounts at stake for individuals are so 11 small that separate suits would be impracticable. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereupon

12 alleges, that most members ofthe class will not be able to find counsel to representthem. Plaintiff

13 is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in

14 one forum because all of the claims arise in the same location; i.e., the iu,MfEDA County Jail. 15 It will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions oflaw and fact in one forum,

16 rather than in multiple courts.

17

27. Plaintiff does not know the identities of all of the class members. Plaintiff is

18 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the identities of the class members may be

19 ascertained from records maintained by the ALAMEDA COUNTY and defeudant SHERIFF

20 CHARLES C. PLUMMER and the defendants' Sheriff's Department. Plaint)tI is informed and
21 believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants' records reflect the identities, including addresses 22 and telephone numbers, oftile persons who have been held in custody in the ALAMEDA County 23 Jails. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that records of, and maintained by 24 defendants reflect who was subject to a strip and/or visua1 body cavity search, when the search 25 OCCUlTed, where the search occuned, whether any reasonable suspicion for the search existed and 26 was recorded in a supervisor-approved writing, whether the search was conducted in a group, when 27 persons searched were arraigned, and the charges on which such persons were an-ested. Plaintiff 28 is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that all of the foregoing information is contained

DA.~1BL SCHA."'FEF.., ot 41. v. HIJlI.mOLDT COUNTY, et III

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 10 of 20

in defendants' computer system and that the information necessary to identifY the class members,

2 by last known addresses, and the dates and reasons for their arrests andJor release from custody,

3 is readily available from said computer system.

4

28. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(c)(2)(b), class

5 members must be furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including

6 individual notice to all members who can be identified tlrrough reasonable effort. Plaintiff is

7 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that defendants' computer records contain a last

8 known address for class members. Plaintiff contemplates that individual notice will be given to

9 class members at such last known address by first class mail. Plaintiff contemplates that the notice

10 will inform class members ofthe following:

11

i. The pendency of the class action and the issues common to the class;

12

Ii The nature of the action;

13

iii Their right to "opt out" of the action within a given time, in which event

14

they will not be bound by a decision rendered in the class action;

15

iv. Their right, if they do not "opt out," to be represented by their own counsel

16

and to enter an appearance in the case; otherwise they wiIl be represented

17

by the named class plaintiff(s) and the named class plaintiff(s)' counsel;

18

aJId

19

v. Their right, if they do not "opt out," to share in any recovery in favor ofthe

20

class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment on the common issues

21

adverse to the class.

22

COUNT ONE

23

(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

24

on behalf of Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated)

25

29. Plaintiffre-alleges and hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs ofthis

26 complaint, to the extent relevant, as jf fully set forth.

27

30. Defendants' policies, practices, and customs regarding the strip and visual body

28 cavity searches complained ofherein violated the rights ofplaintiff, and all those similarly situated,

l,:SDC. NJ::lrth(Jrn Di~triCI, Cue No

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 11 of 20

1 under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seimres; violated the 2 rights ofplaintift~ and all those similarly situated, to due process and privacy under the Fourteenth·

3 Amendment; and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, as

4 herein alleged, entitling plaintiff, and all class members, to re.cove.r damages for said constitutional

5 violations pursuant to 42 U,S,c. § 1983,

6

'WHEREFORE, plaintiffprays for rehef, for himself and for all persons similarly situated,

7 as hereWlder appears,

8

COUNT TWO

9

(California State Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§ 52 and 52,1,

10

on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated)

11

31. Plaintiffre-alleges and hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs ofthis

12 complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth,

13

Defendants' policies, practices, and customs regarding the strip and visual body

14 cavity searches complained ofherein violated the rights ofplaintiff, and all those similarly situated.

15 to privacy as secured by Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution and directly and

16 proximately damaged plaintiff, and each ofthose similarly situated, as herein alleged, entitling said

17 plaintiff, and each of those she represems, to recover a minimum of $4,000 each pm:suant to
18 California Civil Code § 52.1 and § 52, in addition. to other damages,

19

vvlIEREFORE, plaintiffprays for relief, for himself and for all persons similarly situated,

20 as hereunder appears.

21

COUNT THREE

22

(Violation of California Penal Code § 4030,

23

California State Un:r:uh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1,

24

on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated)

25

33, Plaintiffre-alleges and hereby incorporates herein the precedi.ng paragraphs ofthis

26 complain!, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth,

27

34, Defendants' policies, practices, and customs regarding the strip and visual body

28 cavity searches complained of herein violated rights seem:ed to plaintiff, and all those similarly

P.:age 11 of14
CLASS ACTION CO~LAOO

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 12 of 20

I situated, under California Penal Code § 4030 and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff, and

2 each ofthose similarly situated, as herein alleged, entitling plaintiff, and each of those similarly

3 situated, to recover a minimum 0[$1,000 each pursuant to California Penal Code § 4030(P), and

4 to further minimum damages of $4,000 each pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 and § 52,

5 in addition to other damages.

6

WHEREFORE, plaintiffprays forrelief, for himself and for all persons similarly situated,

7 as hereunder appears.

8

COUNT FOUR

9

(Invasion of Privacy, on behalf Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated)

10

35. Plaintiffre-aJ)eges and hereby incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs ofthis

II complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth.

12

36. By strip searching plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, in a non-private area

13 that could be viewed by persons not participating in the strip search, defendants, and each ofthem,

14 violated the rights of plaintift: and each of those similarly situated, to privacy as secured by the

15 California Sate Constitution, Article I, Section 1, and directly and proximately damaged plaintiff,

16 and each of those he represents, by causing emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.

17

WHEREFORE, plaintiffprays for relief, for himself and for all persons similarly situated,

18 as hereunder appears.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, seeks

21 judgment as follows:

22

1. For declaratory and injunctive relief declaring illegal and enjoining, preliminarily

23 and permanently, defendatJts' pohcies, practiees, and customs of subjecting pre-arraignment

24 detainees to strip and visual body cavity searches without having a reasonable suspicion that such

25 searches would be productive of contraband or weapons and conducting said searches in a non-

26 private area observable by persons not patticipating in the search;

27

2. Certification as a class action of plaintit1's complaints concerning defendants'

28 policy, practice, and customs of subj ecting pre-arraigrunent detainees to strip and visual body

DA-'.'TEL SCHAF.FER,!!t 111 \', HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ~ a1

VSDe, No:rth,~ Pistrict, CiI.Se No

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 13 of 20

1 cavity searches without having a reasonable suspicion that such searches would be productive of

2 contraband or weapons;

3

3. For compensatory, general, and special damages for each representative and for

4 each member of the class of plaintiffs, as against all defendants;

5

4. Exemplary damages as against each of the individual defendants in an amount

6 suHicient to deter and to make an example of those defendants;

7

5. In addition to compensatolY and statutolY damages as allowed by law, at least

8 $4,000 for each plaintiff pursuant to California Civil Code § 52,1 and § 52, for each violation

9 thereof;

10

6. In addition to compensatory and statutory damages as allowed bylaw and pursuant

11 to California Penal Code § 4030, at least $1,000 for each plaintiff for each violation ofCaliforrtia

12 Penal Code § 4030 suffered thereby;

13

7. Attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U,S,c. § 1988, CalifomiaCivil Code §52(0)(3),

14 California Civil Code § 52.1 (b), Califomia Code ofCivil Procedure § 10215 and Califomia Penal

15 Code; and § 4030(P); and

16

8. The cost oftms suit and such other reliefas the court finds just and proper.

17 DATED: January 12, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

18

19

20

B Y '.--~~~~~--------------------

21

Attorney for Plaintiffs

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

»AN1EL SCSAl"l'ER., $I: aL v. HUMBOLDT COt/NT'(, e: ai,

DSDC, NortlxufJ DjSlIiC{, Cas¢ No.

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 14 of 20

DEMAND FOR A JURy TRIAL

2

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMA."NDED on behalfofplaintitI, and all those he seeks to represent.

3 DATED: January 12, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

4

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E, MERIN

r
5

6

BY:~..-.-,.....,~c-.-_ _ _ _ _ _ __

7

Mark E, Merin

Attomey for Plaintiffs

9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28

DANI£L SCHfIFFEll, et~, y :HU:I0:BOLDT COUNfY, Itt a!.

cuss AcnON COM1'LAtNr

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 15 of 20
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2( 006 Page 16 of 20
CLAIM AGAINST 1m COlJNTY OF ALAMEDA 'SEP"l 2005

PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
Please complete the [OWl, retain one (I) copy for your record, and return the original and two (2) c.opies to: Clerk, Board of Supervisor' Office, Administration Building, 1221 Oak Street, , Room 536, Oakland, CA 94612. Phone: (510) 272-4949.

All attachm.ents which would SUllDort your claim (estimates. bills. receipt!, police report, etc.}
;';~",~.,:;=

FOR FUTL'RE I:'IIFORMATION ON YOUR CLAlM

PLEASE CONTACT:

Acclamation Insurance Management Services

7901 Oa.kport St., Suite 3100, Oaidand, 94621

Phone No.: (510) 633-5650

Fax: (510) 633-5673

CBS CLAIM: NO, rO 1\(\,5- ;;z. 'li~~
!RECel'\lED
I
:Fol$S:ftrud ~S>NL' ,SiL ,\,
OF SUi=>ERVISORS

1.

Claimant's Neme: Schaffer, De.lliel Philip

(Last, First, Middle In\!i~l)

1.5 Claimant's PFN (if applicable). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~------------

2.

Address: 7QSO Fall CrE\jlk Road #305. ll)1hlin, CA 94568

(number, street, city, o1..t. & zip code)

3.

Address to which notices are to be sent, ii.J;ut1i!t;i;!J!

(phone number)

Name: -':!!:!;~..E:.!-.J"_"~.!!i-"~'-'ill,.b.!i.=._'"~~,u,c..Ji"_ru~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Addre,,: 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814 -...;L9=.:16",/c.:4",4",3c:-",629..,1.1.._ __

.

(numb"" street, city, state &; zip code)

(phone number)

*4.

Total Amount ofC/aim: $ 50, 000, 000.00

5. Date q{Accid'ntILoss: August 13. 2005

7.

How did AccidentlLoss Occu'-?:,_9,ee attached .statement

9.

Nan," oJF"blic Employee(s) CaUSing Inju,ylDarnageiLoss, tJkl1Own: See attached statement

10. lte.rfi.iza.tiof~ o[Clairn (/d§J il13lrrS totaling amO/ij''i.t set fo.rth in li:71.e #4). (Use sepa,~·at~ sheetfor additiona.l items.)

ITEM

AMOl/NT

ITEM:

AMOUNT

~Ssese~a~t~t~a~c~h~e~d~sut~aut~e~m~e~X~ltL-_____$,~_______________ --------------------,,-----------------

_____________________$ 1 .

I

$,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

[~~CL~~:: 8/3l:'~O~5--~-- 11. Signed by Or on be:~aVofclain'1l1nt:

~S ~~~~-----

NOTICE: Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:

'~E\"ety penon 'who; f1"ith ihtont to d~rraud, px-esEots for allowanc.e I.JX lor ,pa}'mElnt to any state board or otIlcer, or to Rny county\ city or

doh:trjct board or of!ic.er~ authorized to allow or pny the same if genuine! any f1tlse o:r fraudulent d.dm, bill~ accQl.l.:nt;. vQu,cher, or writingl is

punishable either by impl1so:n:ment jn the county jail for a pedod of not mOt"e tlu.:n. one year, by a fine of not exceeding On.e thousand

($'1,OOQ)~ or by both. suc.h imprisonment and flne; or by lmpd.~ontne.nt ~n the stfl.te prisolll {lr by a fine not e:x:ceedi;ng ten thousand

($10,000), or by both such imprlson",."! ond fine,"

,

Case 3:06-cv-0031(0-MMC Document 1
LAW OFFICE O? MARK E. MERIN Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849 2 Jeffrey 1. Schwarz5child, SBN 192086 2001 P Street, Suite 100 3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 4 Facsimile: (916) 447·8336

Filed 01/17(/2006

Page 17 of 20

5 Attorney tor Claimants
6

--000--

7 DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself and 8 all those similarly situated;

9 10 v.

Claimants,

CLASS CLAIM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT AND ALL OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE STRIP SEARCHED, ILLEGALLY, AT ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL DURING THE RELEVA..l\'T PERIOD [GOVERNMENT
CODE § 910]

11 COUNTY OF ALAJv1EDA; ALAMEDA

12

COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

13

PLlJ'lIt\}v:!ER, in his individual and official capacities; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S

14

DEPUTIES DOES I THROUGH 50; and ROES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,

15

Respondents.

16

17

Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 910, claimant, DANIEL

18 SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, hereby presents the following claim:

19

(1) --

.G1AL. MANTS:

20

Daniel Schaffer, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated

clo Mark E. Melin, Esq.

21

Law Office of Mark E Merin 2001 P Street, Suite 100

22

Sacramento, CaliiQrnia 95814

Telephone: 916/443-6911

23

Facsimile: 916/447·8336

24 (2) DATE OF INC;r:QE:t::!T:

25

On or about August 13, 2005

26 \\\

CWSCWM

Case 3:06-cv-00310( -MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 18 of 20
1 < (3) LOCAIIQN "'THERE INCIDEh'T OCCURRED:

2

Alameda County Jail

Santa Rita Jail

3

5325 Broder Blvd

Dublin, CA 94568

4

5 (4) FACTS:

6

On or about August 13, 2005, c1aimantDaniel Schaffer was arrested on a traffic warrant and transported

7 to Santa Rita/Alameda Countyjail where prior to posting bail he was dressed·in and taken to the "cafeteria"

8 where he was forced to submit to a strip search in a group with several other persons.

9

After removing all ofhis clothes and standing naked in a line with other persons also naked, he objected

10 to complying with the order to "bend over and spread 'ern" on the ground that he knew it was a violation of

11 his statutory and constitutional rights whereupon he was forcibly thrown up against the wall and required to

12 complete the strip search/visual body cavity search procedure. The deputy conducting the group strip search

13 stated "you're in my house; you'll do it my way" and affmned that this was the "protocol" for the facility.

14

The strip search of a person arrested on a crime not involving violence, drugs or weapons, prior to

15 arraignment, constitutes a violation of Penal Code§ 4030 and a violation ofthe state constitution as well as

16 the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

17

Claimant is info=ed and believes and thereupon alleges that this group strip search was pursuant to a

18 policy, practice a:ld custom of defendani County and County Sheriff.

19

The "group" strip search is a further violation of the above-mentioned statutes and constitutional

20 provisions. Claimant is info=ed and helieves that this "group" strip search is commonly perfo=ed and

21 therefore all person.s subjected to such procedure within six (6) months prior to the filing of this claim are

22 eligible to participate in this class claim under state law and that upon filing litigation, it will apply to all

23 persons subj ected to illegal strip search at the Alameda County Jail within two years prior to the filing oftha!

24 anticipated federal complaint.

25 \\\

26 \\\

CLASS CLAIM

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 19 of 20 (5) PERSONSiENTITIES RESPONsmLE:

2

The COU111y of Alameda, the Sheriff of Alameda, Charles C, Plummer, unnamed deputy

3 sheriff/correctional officers Does 1 to 50,

4 (6) DAMAGES:

5

For claimant $100,000 tor emotional distress and constitutional violations and denial of the right to

6 privacy. Plaintiff believes and on that hasis alleges that there are at least 100 persons per week who have

7 similarly been strip searched in violation oftheir statutory and constitutional rights and that, acc.ordingly, the

8 total amount demanded by this claim is $50,000,000.

9 (7) JURlSDICTION OF C01JRT:

10

The case, ifnot settled at the claim level, would be filed in superior court, as the amount in controversy

11 exceeds $30,000, which COUlt has jurisdiction of this matter or in United States District Court.

12 DATED: August 29,2005

Respectfully submitted,

13

LAW FFICE OF MARK E, MERJN

141

15

BY __ _ ~~~~ ___________________

Mark E. Meri.n

16

Attorneys for Claimants

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

,.
CLASS CUlM

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 1 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 20 of 20 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

2 Claim of Daniel Schaffer, et al. v, Qounty of Alameda, et at

3

I, Kari L. Kalista, eeLS, declare:

4

I am a citizen offue United States, over 18 years of age, employed in the County of Sacramento, and not

a party to the within action; my business address is 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, California 95814.

5

On August 31, 2005, I served the within CLASS CLAlM SUBMUTED ON BEHALF OF

6 CLAIMANT AND ALL OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE STRIP SEARCHED,

ILLEGALLY, AT ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD

7 [GOVERNMENT CODE § 910] on all parties in said action in the following manner:

8 XXXXX
9
10

BY MAIL: I am familiar with this company's practice whereby the mail, after bei.ng placed in a designated area, is given the appropriate postage and is deposited in a U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento, Califonria, during the normal course ofbusjIless on the same day it is placed in the designated area. I placed a tme copy of said document, enclosed in a sealed envelope with fllSt
class postage affixed in the desLgnated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below:

11

BY PERSONAL PELNERY: I caused to be personally delivered a tme copy of said document

to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below:

12

BY FACSIMILE: I faxed a tme copy of said document to the addressee(s) at the number(s) set

13

forth below; I verified that the transmission was reported by the fax machine as complete and

without error; thereafter, I placed a Uue copy in a sealed envelope with first class postage affixed

14

in the designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below:

15 CLERK, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
16 1221 OAK ST RM 536 OAKLAND CA 94612
17
I declare under penalty of peljuJY that the foregoing is true and correct, and that thi.s Declaration was 18 executed on August 31,2005, at Sacramento, Califomia.

19
{original signed by:1
20 Karl L. Kalista, eeLS
21

22

23

24

25

26

CLASS CL.!I..l:M

 
 Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 8

1 MARK E. MERIN, ESQ (SBN 043849) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
2 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5 GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305)
6 BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Professional Corporation
7 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P. O. Box 12925
8 Oakland, CA 94604-2925 Telephone: (510) 834-4350
9 Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

10 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA
11 COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14

15

DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself ) Case No.: C 06 0310 MMC

16 and all those similarly situated;

)

)

17

Plaintiffs,

) ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY

) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF

18 vs.

) CLASS ACTION

)

19 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA ) Date: June 15, 2007

COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

) Time: 9:00 a.m.

20 PLUMMER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND ) Courtroom: 7

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ALAMEDA

) District Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

21 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 1 )

THROUGH 50, AND ROES 1 THROUGH )

22 20, INCLUSIVE,

)

)

23

Defendants.

)

)

24

WHEREAS, plaintiff DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly

25

situated, by and through his attorney, Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, and 26

27 defendants, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

28

-1-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 8

1 PLUMMER, by and through their counsel, Gregory J. Rockwell of the law firm Boornazian,

2 Jensen & Garthe, have entered into an Amended Stipulation of Settlement intending to resolve all

3 claims raised in this class action pending in this Court;
4 WHEREAS, the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, together with the supporting
5 materials, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal with
6
7 prejudice of the pending above-captioned class action against all defendants;

8

WHEREAS, the Court has before it and has reviewed the parties’ Stipulated Motion for

9 Preliminary Approval of Settlement of Class Action together with the Amended Stipulation of

10 Settlement and supporting materials; and
11 WHEREAS, the Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth in the Amended
12 Stipulation of Settlement were the result of good faith, arms’ length settlement negotiations
13 between competent and experienced counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants, after mediation
14
15 before the Honorable Raul Ramirez (Retired);

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

17 I. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

18

1. The terms of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement are hereby preliminarily approved,

19

subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing provided for below.

20

The Court finds that the settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness

21 and that notice of the proposed settlement should be given as provided in this Order.

22
2. The Court further finds that plaintiff DANIEL SCHAFFER is an adequate class 23

24

representative for the settlement class.

25

3. The Court further finds that plaintiffs’ counsel Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of

26

Mark E. Merin is adequate class counsel.

27

28

-2-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 8

1

4. The Court approves the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Strip Search

2

Case attached hereto as Exhibit A and further approves the method by which notice is

3

proposed to be given.

4 5. If, pursuant to the terms of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, the settlement is not
5
consummated, the preliminary approval of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement shall 6

7

be void and the parties shall have reserved all of the rights to continue with any

8

litigation or further mediation or settlement discussions.

9

6. The Bar Date, as defined in paragraph 2 of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement shall

10
11 II.
12
13

be October 11, 2007.
NOTICE TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS, APPROVAL OF CLASS COUNSEL, AND EMPLOYMENT OF CLASS CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR 7. Counsel for the class (“class counsel”) is as follows:

14

Mark E. Merin, Esq.

Law Office of Mark E. Merin

15

2001 P Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95814

16

(916) 443-6911 - Telephone

(916) 447-8336 - Facsimile

17

8. Counsel for defendants are as follows:

18

Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.

19

Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe

A Professional Corporation

20

555 12th Street, Suite 1800

P. O. Box 12925

21

Oakland, CA 94604-2925

Telephone: (510) 834-4350

22

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

23

9. Class Claims Administrator is as follows:

24

Gilardi and Company, LLC

P.O. Box 1110

25

Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110

(415) 461-0410 - Telephone

26

(800) Toll Free Number to be arranged.

(415) 461-0412 - Facsimile

27

28

-3-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 8

1

10. Beginning no later than 30 days from the date of this Order, counsel for the parties

2

acting with the Class Claims Administrator shall cause to be disseminated the Notice

3

and Claim Form, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, in the

4 manner set forth in paragraphs 66 through 68 of the Stipulation of Settlement. Such
5
summary notice as the parties agree will be published in accordance with the Amended 6

7

Stipulation of Settlement. Class members will have up to and including October 11,

8

2007, in which to object to this settlement or file claims. Prior to the Fairness Hearing,

9

the Claims Administrator shall file and serve a sworn statement attesting to compliance

10

with the provisions of this paragraph.

11 11. The notice to be provided as set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement is
12 hereby found to be the best means practicable of providing notice under the
13
circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the 14

15

proposed settlement and of the Fairness Hearing to all persons and entities affected by

16

and/or entitled to participate in the settlement, in full compliance with applicable

17

statutes and Constitution of the state of California, due process, the Constitution of the

18

United States and all other applicable laws. The notices are accurate, objective,

19 informative and provide class members with all of the necessary information to make

20
an informed decision regarding their participation in the settlement and its fairness. 21

22

12. Counsel for the respective parties are authorized to retain Gilardi and Company, LLC,

23

P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110, as Class Claims Administrator in

24

accordance with the Amended Stipulation of Settlement and this Order.

25

26

27

28

-4-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 8

1 III. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

2

13. Any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded (“Opt Out”) from the

3

Settlement Class must send a written request for exclusion to the Court at the address

4 indicated in the Notice, postmarked on or before the Bar Date. The request for
5
exclusion shall fully comply with the requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulation 6

7

of Settlement. Members of the Settlement Class may not exclude themselves by filing

8

requests for exclusions as a group or class, but must, in each instance, individually and

9

personally execute a request for exclusion and timely transmit it to the Court.

10

14. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request

11 exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions
12 of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, including but not limited to the releases,
13
waivers, and covenants described in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, whether or 14

15

not such person objected to the settlement and whether or not such person made a claim

16

under the terms of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement.

17 IV. THE FAIRNESS HEARING

18

15. A hearing on final approval, the “Fairness Hearing,” is hereby scheduled to be held

19 before this Court on November 16, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the fairness,

20
reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the dismissal with prejudice 21

22

of this class action complaint with respect to the released parties herein, and the entry

23

of final judgment in the class action. Class counsels’ application for an award of

24

attorneys’ fees and costs shall be heard at the time of the Fairness Hearing. The motion

25

for final approval and class counsels’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees and

26

costs shall be filed no later than November 2, 2007.

27

28

-5-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 8

1

16. The date and time of the Fairness Hearing shall be set forth in the Notice, but the

2

Fairness Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without further notice to

3

the members of the settlement class other than that which may be issued by the Court.

4 17. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the settlement class may, but need
5
not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. Settlement class members 6

7

who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented by

8

class counsel.

9

18. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the settlement class may, but need

10

not, submit comments or objections to the proposed settlement. Any class member

11 may object to the proposed settlement, entry of the final order and judgment approving
12 the settlement, and class counsels’ application for fees and expenses by filing and
13
serving a written objection. 14

15

19. Any class member making the objection (an “objector”) must sign the objection

16

personally. Any objection must state why the objector objects to the proposed

17

settlement and provide the basis to support such position. If an objector intends to

18

appear personally at the Fairness Hearing, the objector must include with the objection

19 a notice of the objector’s intent to appear at the hearing.

20
20. Objections, along with any notice of intent to appear, must be filed with the Court no 21

22

later than October 11, 2007. If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than one class

23

member, counsel must identify each such class member and each class member must

24

have complied with the requirements of this order. The documents must be filed with

25

the clerk of the Court at the following address: United States District Court, Northern

26

District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, California

27 94102.

28

-6-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED]

Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 8

1

21. Objections, along with any notice of intent to appear, must also be mailed to class

2

counsel and counsel for defendants at the addresses listed below:

3

Counsel for the class (“class counsel”) is as follows:

4

Mark E. Merin, Esq.

5

Law Office of Mark E. Merin

2001 P Street, Suite 100

6

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 443-6911 - Telephone

7

(916) 447-8336 - Facsimile

8

Counsel for defendants are as follows:

9

Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.

Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe

10

A Professional Corporation

555 12th Street, Suite 1800

11

P. O. Box 12925

Oakland, CA 94604-2925

12

Telephone: (510) 834-4350

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

13

22. Only class members who have filed and served valid and timely notices of objection 14

15

shall be entitled to be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Any class member who does not

16

timely file and serve an objection in writing to the settlement, entry of final order and

17

judgment, or to class counsels’ application for fees and expenses, in accordance with

18

the procedure set forth in the class notice and mandated in the order, shall be deemed to

19 have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
20 23. Persons wishing to be heard at the Fairness Hearing are required to file written
21
comments or objections and indicate in their written comments or objections their 22

23

intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Settlement class members need not appear

24

at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.

25

24. All members of the settlement class who do not personally and timely request to be

26

excluded from the class are enjoined from proceeding against the defendants until such

27 time as the Court renders a final decision regarding approval of the settlement and, if

28

-7-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 8

1

the settlement is approved, enters final judgment as provided in the Amended

2 3 V. 4 5 6 7 8

Stipulation of Settlement. OTHER PROVISIONS 25. Upon approval of the settlement provided for in the Amended Stipulation of
Settlement, each and every term and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth and shall have the force and effect of an order of this Court.

9

26. The Honorable Raul Ramirez, United States District Court Judge, retired, is hereby

10

appointed to serve as Special Master to review and resolve certain disputes which may

11 arise pursuant to the terms of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement.
12 27. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the settlement class as well as
13
administering the Amended Stipulation of Settlement shall be paid as set forth in the 14

15

Amended Stipulation of Settlement.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18 DATED: June 20, 2007 19 20 21

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-8-

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

NOCTaICseE3O:0F6P-cRvO-0P0O31S0E-DMMSECTTLDEoMcuEmNeTnOt 4F4C-2LASSFiAleCdT0I6O/2N0/S2T0R07IP SEPAagReC1HoCf A4 SE

If you were booked into an Alameda County Jail and strip-searched individually or in a group, PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT, BETWEEN JANUARY 17, 2004, AND DECEMBER 31, 2006,
you may be entitled to monetary compensation under a class action settlement.

There is presently pending a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. If the proposed Settlement receives final approval, people who were subjected to a strip search in an Alameda County Jail prior to arraignment on certain charges, and/or subjected to a strip search in a group will be eligible to receive money from the settlement fund.
If you believe you are a member of the class and you do not get a Claim Form mailed to you, you may obtain a claim form by writing to the Claims Administrator, Schaffer v. County of Alameda Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrators, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110, by calling the Claims Administrator at (877) 446-2122, by visiting the website at www.schaffervalamedaco.com, or by contacting the class counsel, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 443-6911, e-mail at office@markmerin.com.
DO NOT CONTACT EITHER THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THIS SETTLEMENT.
Your Claim Form must be completed and postmarked no later than October 11, 2007 For more information, please read this notice.
If You Wish to Claim Monetary Compensation, Obtain, Fill out and Mail the Claim Form as Soon as Possible but No Later than October 11, 2007.
PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT.

There is now pending in the United States District Court in and for the Northern District of California a class action lawsuit involving the classes of persons defined below:

CLASS 1:

This class includes all persons arrested and booked into Santa Rita Jail during the period from January 17, 2004, to and including December 31, 2006, who were strip searched in groups, prior to arraignment, who were either arrested on charges involving violence, drugs, or weapons, or who, in the five years preceding their pre-arraignment strip search, had been arrested in Alameda County on a charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons, or who, at the time of their pre-arraignment group strip search were required, as a condition of probation or parole, to submit to a search of their person.

CLASS 2:

This class includes all persons arrested and booked into Santa Rita Jail or Glenn Dyer Jail on any charges not involving violence, drugs or weapons during the period from January 17, 2004, to and including August 31, 2006, who were strip searched prior to arraignment, except those who, within five years prior to the booking, had been arrested in Alameda County on a charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons or who, at the time of their booking, were required, as a condition of probation or parole, to submit to a search of their person.

This Notice is to inform you that a settlement has been proposed in this action and that, as a potential class member, your rights may be affected by the settlement. This Notice also summarizes the terms and effect of the proposed settlement, what you can do to participate in it, and how you can obtain money under the settlement.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED TERMS

A Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) was entered into after negotiations between the parties, conducted with the assistance of a third party mediator. The Parties are requesting that the Court Approve the Settlement.

A. Parties to the Settlement.

The parties to the Settlement are Plaintiffs named in Schaffer, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al., United States District Court, Northern District, Case No. C 06-0310 MMC on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, and various defendants including the County of Alameda. Counsel for the class is Mark E. Merin, The Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

PAGE 1 OF 4

B. MonetaryCTaersmes3o:f0S6et-tclevm-0en0t310-MMC Document 44-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 4
1. Class Fund and Related Expenses.
Defendants shall pay a maximum of $6,150,000 under the terms of the settlement which will hereafter be referred to as the Settlement Fund.
Class Counsel shall seek an award of up to $1,175,000 of the Settlement Fund as attorney’s fees and costs for recovering the Settlement Fund for the Class Members. Up to $275,000 of the Settlement Fund may be used for costs of claims administration. Up to $4,700,000 may be used to pay valid claims, including the claim of representative plaintiff Schaffer.
2. Payments to Class Members Who File Claims.
Money for the class will be paid out based on a distribution formula, subject to payments being proportionately reduced if the total value of verified Class 1 claims exceeds $625,000, and/or the total value of verified Class 2 claims exceeds $4,000,000.
Pursuant to that distribution formula, each Class 1 claimant who was arrested on a misdemeanor charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons, or who, in the five years before their booking and pre-arraignment strip search, had been arrested in Alameda County on a misdemeanor charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons, and who were not required, at the time of their booking and prearraignment strip search, as a condition of parole or probation, to submit to a search of their person, will receive up to $200 for each booking and pre-arraignment strip search, up to a maximum of two. Each Class 1 claimant who was arrested on a felony charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons, or who, in the five years before their booking and pre-arraignment strip search, had been arrested in Alameda County on a felony charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons, or who were required, at the time of their booking and pre-arraignment strip search, as a condition of parole or probation, to submit to a search of their person, will receive up to $35 for each booking and pre-arraignment strip search, up to a maximum of two.
Each Class 2 claimant booked on a felony offense not involving violence, drugs, or weapons, except those who, at the time of booking, had been arrested on a felony or misdemeanor offense involving violence, drugs, or weapons in Alameda County during the five years before their booking and pre-arraignment strip search, or who were required, at the time of their booking and prearraignment strip search ,as a condition of parole or probation, to submit to a search of their person, will receive a base payment of up to $1,000 for each booking and pre-arraignment strip search, up to a maximum of two.
Each Class 2 claimant booked on a misdemeanor offense not involving violence, drugs, or weapons, except those who, at the time of booking, had been arrested on a felony or misdemeanor offense involving violence, drugs, or weapons in Alameda County during the five years before their booking and pre-arraignment strip search, or who were required, at the time of their booking and prearraignment strip search, as a condition of parole or probation, to submit to a search of their person, will receive a base payment of up to $1,500 for each booking and pre-arraignment strip search, up to a maximum of two.
In addition to the base payments described above, Class 2 claimants booked on felony offenses or who had been arrested on a felony charge during the five years before their booking and pre-arraignment strip search may be eligible to receive additional sums (minor enhancements) of up to $250 for each applicable condition if they were under 21 or over 60 years of age at the time of their strip search(es) and/or appropriately indicate on their Claim Form, and the County has no information to the contrary, that, at the time of the search which is the subject of the claim, they were suffering from a mental or physical disability, and/or were required to remove religious garments. They may also be eligible to receive additional sums (major enhancements) of up to $500 if they appropriately indicate on their Claim Form, and the County has no information to the contrary, that, at the time of the search which is the subject of the claim, they were either more than two months pregnant or were menstruating.
In addition to the base payments described above, Class 2 claimants booked on misdemeanor offenses who had not been arrested on a felony or misdemeanor charge involving violence, drugs, or weapons in Alameda County during the five years before their booking and pre-arraignment strip search, may become eligible to receive additional sums (major enhancements) of up to $500 for each applicable condition, if they were under 21 or over 60 years of age at the time of their strip search(es) and/or they appropriately indicate on their Claim Forms, and the County has no information to the contrary, that, at the time of the search which is the subject of the claim, they were suffering from a mental or physical disability, were required to remove religious garments and/or were either more than two months pregnant or were menstruating.
In addition to the base payments, Class 2 claimants may become eligible to receive amounts of $5,000 to $25,000 if, at the time that they submit a claim they also submit medical or psychological records or reports of licensed physicians, psychologists, marriage, family and child counselors or clinical social workers establishing that, within 90 days of the search which is the subject of their claim, they received treatment for a physical, emotional or psychological injury caused by the pre-arraignment strip search which is the subject of their claim.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

PAGE 2 OF 4

3. Reduction CofaAswear3d:s0. 6-cv-00310-MMC Document 44-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 4
Awards to Class 2 claimants will be reduced by 50% if, at any time during the five years preceding the earliest strip search during the claim period, the claimant was sentenced and confined in any California County jail or in a California State Penitentiary or Correctional Institution. Net awards to Class 2 claimants may be further reduced by up to a maximum of 50% for certain unpaid debts to the County of Alameda for unpaid work furlough fees, unpaid child support, restitution ordered or payments due to the Victims of Violent Crime Fund, or for other debts collectible by the Central Collections Department of the Alameda County AuditorController Agency or by the Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector.
C. Your Options as a Class Member.
1. Be Bound by, and Participate in the Settlement.
To qualify for a payment, you must send in a completed Claim Form to the Claims Administrator. A Claim Form is included in this notice package. You can also get a Claim Form by: (1) calling this toll free number: (877) 446-2122; (2) visiting the website, www.schaffervalamedaco.com; (3) requesting a Claim Form from the offices of Class Counsel at: The Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street #100, Sacramento, CA 95814, telephone (916) 443-6911; or (4) writing the Claims Administrator at: Schaffer v. County of Alameda Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110.
You have until October 11, 2007, to submit a Claim Form.
Mail your completed Claim Form to: Schaffer v. County of Alameda Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110.
If you need assistance in completing the claim form, feel free to contact class counsel, Mark E. Merin at the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 443-6911.
Remember, if you do not send a Claim Form, you cannot get a payment. Also, please note that Class Members who have already settled their claims with the County of Alameda or gone to trial with the County of Alameda cannot receive a payment under this settlement. If you submit a Claim Form, you will be bound by the Settlement and receive money (if you are a class member). If you do not submit a Claim form but did not exclude yourself from the class, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and dismissal entered in this case, but you will not receive any money.
By participating in the Settlement you will be waiving all your rights to all claims up to December 31, 2006, related to strip searches by the Alameda County Jails, even those of which you are not aware at present. This waiver will include a waiver of the provisions of California Civil Code §1542, which provides that “a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.” By participating, you will be giving up unsuspected claims in the areas covered by the litigation.
2. Exclude Yourself From the Class.
You do not have to take part in the Settlement or be a member of the class. This is called “excluding” yourself. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment and you cannot object to the Settlement. Any Court orders will not apply to you. To exclude yourself, you must sign a request for exclusion letter that states that you want to be excluded from Schaffer, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al., Case No. C 06-0310. Your exclusion letter must be mailed and postmarked before October 11, 2007 to: Schaffer v. County of Alameda Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110.
If you do not follow these instructions properly, you will lose your right to exclude yourself. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any money from the Settlement and you cannot tell the Court you do not like the Settlement (which is called “objecting”). If you exclude yourself, you are no longer part of the class or the Settlement, but you can sue the County of Alameda on your own.
D. Fairness Hearing and Process for Objections.
A fairness hearing will be held on November 16, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 7, San Francisco, CA 94102. If you are a class member and do not exclude yourself, you can tell the Court you do not like the Settlement or some part of it at this hearing. This is called objecting to the Settlement. For example, you can say you do not think the Settlement is fair or adequate. The Court will consider your views.
To object, you must send a letter to the court that contains all of the following: (1) The name and title of the lawsuit, Schaffer, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al., Case No. C 06-0310 MMC; (2) A statement of each objection you have and the facts that support the objections; (3) A description of any law or case supporting the objections; (4) A statement on whether or not you or your lawyer will

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 4
ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing to talk about your objections, and, if so, how long you will need to present your objections; and (5) Copies of any documents you or your lawyer will present at the Fairness Hearing.
Individually, or through counsel, any class member has the right to object to the proposed Settlement as a whole, to the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs of Class Counsel, or to any portion of either. ANY SUCH OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 11, 2007, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOCATED AT 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, ATTN: CLERK, RE: SCHAFFER V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SETTLEMENT, CASE NO. C 06-0310 MMC. If you wish to appear and present your objections at the fairness hearing, you must also submit a Notice of Intention to Appear that identifies the case, contains your name and address, and explains the reason the appearance is desired. The Notice of Intention to Appear and any objections must be filed with the Court on or before October 11, 2007. You may be represented by your own attorney. If you are to be represented by an attorney at the hearing, his or her name, address and telephone number must be included in the Notice of Intention to Appear as well.
A copy of the Statement of Objection and/or Notice of Intention to Appear must also be mailed to: The Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814 ATTN: Mark E. Merin and to Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe, P.O. Box 12925, Oakland, CA 94604-2925, ATTN: Gregory J. Rockwell.
E. How to Obtain Further Information
For additional information regarding the Settlement and Claim Form, or a copy of the Settlement Agreement, Claim Form or Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, you or your counsel should contact: Schaffer v County of Alameda Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110. You may also check the Class Administrator’s website at www.schaffervalamedaco.com or call (877) 446-2122. You may also obtain detailed information about the case by examining the Court file located in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court in and for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT FOR INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THIS SETTLEMENT.
F. Court Approval.
Although the Court has reviewed the proposed Settlement, no decision has been, or will be, reached by the Court, until the Fairness Hearing. This Notice does not indicate that the Court has yet approved the Settlement.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44-3 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 3

ALAMEDA COUNTY STRIP SEARCH LAW SUIT CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM
(SCHAFFER, ET AL. vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ET AL) U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. C 06-0310 MMC

FILL OUT THIS FORM IF YOU WERE ARRESTED AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING JANUARY 17, 2004, THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2006, AND WERE STRIP SEARCHED,
PRIORTO ARRAIGNMENT, AT AN ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL (SANTA RITA AND/OR GLENN DYER). MEMBERS OF THIS CLASS WHO QUALIFY WILL RECEIVE VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY DEPENDING UPON ANSWERS
GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON THIS CLAIM FORM AND INFORMATION IN ALAMEDA COUNTY’S COMPUTER DATABASE.
You must complete and submit this claim form no later than October 11, 2007, to qualify for payment from settlement of the class action strip search case against Alameda County. If you do not return a completed claim form by the due date you will receive no money from the settlement.

CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM

________________________(Bar Code) Name Address City, State, Zip Code Phone #: Cal. Driver’s License No.
Social Security Number: Date of Birth:

Claim No._____________________________________ Please enter your correct name, and address here if it does not appear to the left. Name: ______________________________________________ Address:_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

-------- p -------- p -------- p -------- p -------- p -------- p --------
WERE YOU ARRESTED AND STRIP SEARCHED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AT AN ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL (SANTA RITA AND/OR GLENN DYER) AT ANY TIME FROM AND INCLUDING JANUARY 17, 2004, THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2006?

Yes No t t

If you answered “yes” to the above question, please continue to answer the questions below.

Use return envelope and mail the completed claim form and any supporting information to: Class Claim Administrator: Schaffer, et al. Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110. DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM TO THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT.

Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the “yes” or “no” box at the end of the question. If you check “yes” as the answer to any question, you MUST submit an explanation, description of the circumstances, medical verification, witness statements, or such other documentation necessary to support your answer. If you do not provide the requested explanation, description or substantiation, your “yes” answer will be disregarded. CAUTION – THESE ANSWERS ARE GIVEN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. IF YOU GIVE A FALSE ANSWER, YOU WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO RECOVER MONEY, AND YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION.

1

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44-3 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 3

WERE YOU STRIP SEARCHED IN A GROUP PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT ON THE CHARGES FOR WHICH YOU WERE ARRESTED?

Yes No t t

If you were strip searched in a group, prior to arraignment, check the box below that best describes the search. CHECK ONLY ONE (1) BOX:

t

The strip search occurred in the booking area.

t

The strip search occurred in the kitchen.

t The strip search occurred in a multi purpose room or in the hallway outside a multipurpose room.

t

The strip search occurred in the yard.

t

The strip search occurred in a bathroom.

ALL PERSONS COMPLETING THIS CLAIM FORM, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

Yes No

1.

Did you have a physical disability or disfigurement (such as an embarrassing scar condition in a

private area) at the time of the strip search? If so, describe the disability, and/or scar condition in

detail and/or submit a photograph. __________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

t

t

2.

Did you have a mental disability at the time of the strip search? If so, describe/explain the mental

disability. _____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

t t

3.

If you are female, were you more than 2 months pregnant at the time of the strip search? If so, give

the full name and birth date of the child born and the name of the hospital where it was born, or

explain how the pregnancy ended.___________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

t

t

4.

Were you required to remove religious garments during the strip search? If so, describe the

garments, why they are worn and how they are worn: ___________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

t t

5.

If you are female, were you having your period at the time of the strip search? ________________

______________________________________________________________________________

t t

6.

Did you serve any time in a State Prison or County Jail as a result of a sentenced conviction

within five years before the strip search? If so, please list the date(s) you were in jail or prison and

the facility you were incarcerated in. _________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

t

t

2

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 44-3 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 3

7.

Did you receive counseling or therapy for physical, emotional or psychological injury caused by

the strip search within ninety (90) days after the strip search? If so, give the name, address and

telephone number(s) of the therapist(s), the dates of the visits and provide copies of reports or

records from your therapist to support your claim:_____________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

t

t

CRIMINAL FRAUD WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF YOUR CLAIM.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
DATED: _______________________ SIGNATURE:____________________________________
The information given here is private and will be held in the strictest confidence. If you have any questions about this lawsuit, write to the Claims Administrator at Schaffer, et al., Strip Search Class Action, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110, or visit our website at www.schaffervalamedaco.com.
THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND RETURNED WITH A POSTMARK NO LATER THAN October 11, 2007.
If you need assistance in completing this form, please feel free to contact plaintiffs’ class counsel, Mark E. Merin at Law Offices of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, California 95814; Telephone (916) 443-6911; Facsimile (916) 447-8336; Email office@markmerin.com. DO NOT CONTACT THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA OR THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS FORM.
If you would like your settlement check mailed to an address other than that on the first page of the Claim Form, provide it here: (Address if different) to which settlement check should be mailed:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

24433/399440

3

 
 Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 19

1 MARK E. MERIN, ESQ. (SBN 043849) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
2 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5 GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305)
6 BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Professional Corporation
7 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P. O. Box 12925
8 Oakland, CA 94604-2925 Telephone: (510) 834-4350
9 Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

10 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA
11 COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself )

15 and all those similarly situated;

)

)

16

Plaintiffs,

)

)

17 vs.

)

)

18 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA )

COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

)

19 PLUMMER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND )

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ALAMEDA

)

20 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 1 )

THROUGH 50, AND ROES 1 THROUGH )

21 20, INCLUSIVE,

)

)

22

Defendants.

)

)

23

Case No.: C 06 0310 MMC
AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT

24

Plaintiff DANIEL SCHAFFER (“SCHAFFER”)on behalf of himself and on behalf of the

25 settlement class defined herein, and Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA

26 COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER (hereinafter collectively referred to as

27 “COUNTY”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby submit the following Stipulation of

28 Settlement.
-1AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 19

1

I.

2

RECITALS

3

On or about January 17, 2006, SCHAFFER filed a class action complaint against

4 Defendants. Said complaint alleged that the COUNTY’s practices related to strip searching pre-

5 arraignment arrestees at its jail facilities violated said arrestees’ rights guaranteed by the Fourth

6 Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 1 of the California

7 Constitution and were in violation of certain California statutes, including Penal Code section

8 4030, in two respects: said searches were being performed on arrestees for whom there was no

9 reasonable suspicion that they may be attempting to conceal contraband (“ILLEGAL

10 SEARCHES”), and said searches were being performed on more than one person at the same time

11 and in the same room (“GROUP SEARCHES”).

12

The parties entered into discovery which included exchange of documents, preparation of

13 and responses to request for production of documents, interrogatories and depositions.

14

Beginning in June 2006 and continuing thereafter through December 31, 2006, COUNTY

15 issued written and verbal directives and training to employees operating its jail facilities in order to

16 eliminate the challenged practices of conducting either ILLEGAL SEARCHES and GROUP

17 SEARCHES of pre-arraignment arrestees.

18

On February 14 and 15, 2007, the Parties participated in mediation sessions presided over

19 by the Honorable Raul A. Ramirez (retired) and agreed to this Stipulation of Settlement which,

20 subject to the approval of the Court, settles this action in the manner and upon the terms set forth

21 below and fully resolves the dispute.

22

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between

23 the Parties as follows:

24

II.

25

DEFINITIONS

26

1. “Administrator” means Gilardi and Co., P. O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-

27 1110, to be appointed by the Court to provide notice to the members of the class and to review and

28 determine the validity and value of claims submitted by Settlement Class Members (“SCMs”),
-2AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 19

1 according to the procedures set forth herein.

2

2. The “Bar Date” is the date established by the Court by which any SCM who wishes

3 to receive payment pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement must file his/her Claim Form(s),

4 objections to this Stipulation of Settlement, or request to be excluded from the class (“opt-out”).

5 The Bar Date shall be one hundred and twenty (120) days after the date of the Court’s order

6 preliminarily approving the terms of this settlement.

7

3. “Charge List” means the list of charges attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

8

4. The “Claim Form” is the form required to be used to make a claim for payment

9 under this settlement. A copy of the proposed Claim Form is attached as Exhibit 2.

10

5. “Class Counsel” means The Law Office of Mark E. Merin, and Mark E. Merin,

11 attorney, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814.

12

6. The “Class Notice” means the notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 3

13 (Notice by Mail); such other summary notice(s) to be published in newspapers serving the

14 Alameda County area and posted in the Santa Rita and Glenn Dyer jails operated by Alameda

15 County:

16

7. The “Class Period 1” is January 17, 2004, through December 31, 2006, for

17

claimants making claims for GROUP SEARCHES.

18

8. The “Class Period 2” is January 17, 2004 through August 31, 2006, for claimants

19

making claims for ILLEGAL SEARCHES.

20

9. The “Database” is the information provided in hard copy and/or electronic form by

21 COUNTY to the Administrator and Class Counsel which includes, to the extent practicable, the

22 name, last known addresses, date of birth, social security number, date(s) of booking, charge(s)

23 and information reflecting whether the SCM was on searchable parole or probation at the time of

24 booking of all SCMs booked and housed at COUNTY’s jail facilities during the Class Periods.

25

10. “Debts Owed” shall mean any financial obligation of an SCM which would be

26 collected by the Central Collections Department of the Alameda County Auditor-Controller

27 Agency or by the Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector, any amounts owed to the County of

28 Alameda for unpaid work furlough fees, any amounts owed to the County of Alameda or State of
-3AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 4 of 19

1 California for unpaid child support or for amounts paid from the Victims of Violent Crime Fund as

2 a result of criminal conduct of an SCM, and any amounts owed by any SCM for restitution ordered

3 by the Alameda Superior Court.

4

11. The “Effective Date” means the date upon which a judgment entered by the Court

5 approving the Stipulation of Settlement becomes final. The judgment will be deemed final only

6 upon expiration of the time to appeal or, if a Notice of Appeal is filed, upon exhaustion of all

7 appeals and petitions for Writ of Certiorari.

8

12. “Non-VDW Misdemeanor Offense” means a misdemeanor, infraction, ordinance or

9 lesser offense arrest charge not listed on the Charge List.

10

13. “Non-VDW Felony Offense” means a felony arrest charge not listed on the Charge

11 List.

12

14. “VDW Misdemeanor Offense” means a misdemeanor, infraction, ordinance or

13 lesser offense arrest charge listed on the Charge List.

14

15. “VDW Felony Offense” means a felony arrest charge listed on the Charge List.

15

16. An “Opt-Out” is any potential SCM who files a timely request for exclusion as

16 specified in Paragraph 48.

17

17. “Released Persons” means the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, all of its agencies,

18 departments and divisions, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER and their

19 predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present, and future officials,

20 employees, representatives, attorneys and/or agents of the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA or the

21 Alameda County Sheriff’s Department.

22

18. The “Settlement Class” means all of those persons who are members of the

23 following defined classes who, during the class periods identified in Paragraphs 7 and 8 above,

24 were booked at Alameda County Santa Rita or Glenn Dyer Jails, assigned to a housing unit and

25 strip searched at said facilities prior to arraignment on the charges for which they were booked:

26

a. The following persons shall be referred to as the “Group Search Class”: (1)

27

All arrestees booked into Santa Rita Jail during Class Period 1 on a VDW Felony or

28

Misdemeanor Offense, who were assigned to a housing unit and who underwent a

-4-

AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 5 of 19

1

GROUP SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on which they were booked

2

during Class Period 1; (2) All arrestees booked into Santa Rita Jail during Class

3

Period 1 on a non-VDW Offense, but who, during the Five (5) years prior to such

4

Class Period 1 booking, had been arrested in ALAMEDA COUNTY on a VDW

5

Felony or Misdemeanor Offense, or who, at the time of such Class Period 1

6

booking were required to submit to a search of their person as a condition of parole

7

or probation, who were assigned to a housing unit and who underwent a GROUP

8

SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on which they were booked during

9

Class Period 1.

10

b. The following persons shall be referred to as the “Illegal Search Class”: All

11

arrestees booked into Santa Rita or Glenn Dyer Jails during Class Period 2 on a

12

non-VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense, except those who, at the time of such

13

Class Period 2 booking, had been arrested in ALAMEDA COUNTY in the Five (5)

14

years prior to such Class Period 2 booking on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor

15

Offense, or who, at the time of such Class Period 2 booking, were required to

16

submit to a search of their person as a condition of parole or probation, who were

17

assigned to a housing unit and who underwent an ILLEGAL SEARCH prior to

18

arraignment on the charges on which they were booked during Class Period 2.

19

19. A “Settlement Class Member” (“SCM”) means any member of the Settlement

20 Class, including representatives, successors and assigns, who does not file a valid and timely

21 Request for Exclusion as provided in Paragraph 48 of this Stipulation of Settlement.

22

20. “Special Master” shall mean the Honorable Raul A. Ramirez (Ret.) appointed by

23 the Court to preside over this Stipulation of Settlement. The Special Master shall have power to

24 make decisions in all matters pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Stipulation of

25 Settlement, and to resolve all disputes between the Parties pertaining to the Stipulation of

26 Settlement. All orders and directives of the Special Master shall be subject to review by the Court

27 upon request of any party. Except for those duties set forth in Paragraph 53, all fees and expenses

28 of the Special Master shall be paid equally by the parties, unless otherwise ordered by either the
-5AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 6 of 19

1 Special Master or the Court, or otherwise agreed by the Parties.

2

21. This Stipulation of Settlement is for settlement purposes only, and neither the fact

3 of, nor any provision contained in this Stipulation of Settlement or its exhibits, nor any action

4 taken hereunder shall constitute, be construed as, or be admissible in evidence as any admission of

5 the validity of any claim or any fact alleged by the Plaintiff or SCMs in this action or in any other

6 pending action of any wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability of any kind on the part of

7 Defendants or admission by Defendants of any claim or allegation made in this action or in any

8 other action, nor as an admission by the Plaintiff, SCMs or Class Counsel of the validity of any

9 fact or defense asserted against them in this action or in any other action. Defendants deny all

10 allegations of wrongdoing and deny any liability to Plaintiffs or to any other Class Members. The

11 Parties have agreed that, in order to avoid long and costly litigation, this controversy should be

12 settled pursuant to the terms of this settlement, subject to the approval of the Court.

13

III.

14

TERMS AND EFFECT OF STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT

15

22. The parties will file a proposed stipulated protective order concurrently with the

16 motion for preliminary approval of this Stipulation of Settlement to allow personnel of the

17 Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and/or the Alameda County Information Technology

18 Department to provide the name, last known address, and other necessary data of all SCMs to

19 Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator. This information is privileged and confidential. The

20 Defendants may, in their sole discretion, withdraw from the Stipulation of Settlement if the Court

21 does not enter that order.

22

23. On or about the Effective Date, the parties will submit all appropriate papers to

23 dismiss Case No. C 06 0310 MMC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

24 California.

25

24. The Parties agree, solely for the purpose of this settlement and implementation, that

26 the action shall proceed as a class action, with the Settlement Class as defined in Paragraph 18, and

27 that attorneys for the Settlement Class are Class Counsel as defined in Paragraph 5; but if such

28 settlement fails to be approved or otherwise fails to be consummated, then this Stipulation of
-6AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 7 of 19

1 Settlement is hereby withdrawn.

2

25. SCMs who comply with the requirements set forth in this Stipulation of Settlement

3 will be paid specified sums determined by the procedures set forth herein in full satisfaction of all

4 claims.

5

26. This Stipulation of Settlement, as of the Effective Date, resolves in full all claims

6 against the Released Persons by SCHAFFER and all of the SCMs, involving violations of their

7 rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or by Article 1,

8 Section 1 of the California Constitution, or of alleged violations of California Penal Code Section

9 4030, California Civil Code Sections 52 and 52.1 or any other federal, state or local law,

10 regulation, duty or obligation which are based upon, or could be based upon, or arise from the facts

11 alleged in the complaint for damages filed in Case No. C 06 0310 MMC filed in the United States

12 District Court, for the Northern District of California. When the Stipulation of Settlement is final,

13 as of the Effective Date, all SCMs and SCHAFFER, hereby release all such claims.

14

27. The Parties agree that the Court, by preliminarily approving the Stipulation of

15 Settlement, will be certifying the Settlement Class as defined in Paragraph 18 as the Settlement

16 Class, subject to final approval of the settlement at the Fairness Hearing and that the Court shall

17 retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the action, Parties, SCMs, Special Master and the

18 Administrator to interpret and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations under this agreement.

19

28. This is a full and final Release applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries,

20 deaths or damages arising out of the events described in Paragraph 23 as well as those now known

21 or disclosed, SCHAFFER and each SCM waives all rights or benefits which he or she now has or

22 in the future may have under the terms of California Civil Code section 1542, which reads:

23

“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does

not know or suspect to exists in his or her favor at the time of

24

executing the release, which if known by him or her must have

materially effected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

25

26

29. As of the Effective Date of this Stipulation of Settlement, the SCMs, including

27 SCHAFFER, hereby waive any and all rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence any

28 action or proceeding before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, or to file any
-7AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 8 of 19

1 complaint with regard to acts or commission or omission by the Released Persons respecting such

2 SCMs with respect to any strip search by Defendants during their confinement at any of the

3 COUNTY’s jail facilities which occurred during the Class Periods.

4

30. This Stipulation of Settlement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon

5 by the Parties hereto regarding the subject matter of the instant proceeding, and no oral agreement

6 entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this

7 Stipulation shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the Parties hereto, or to vary the terms and

8 conditions contained herein, except as expressly provided herein.

9

31. Each SCM shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.

10

32. No Opt-Out shall share in any monetary benefits provided by this Stipulation of

11 Settlement.

12

33. This agreement is subject to and conditioned upon the final approval of this

13 Stipulation of Settlement and the issuance of the final order and judgment of dismissal, by the

14 United States District Court, Northern District of California, providing the below specified relief,

15 which relief shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Stipulation of Settlement and the

16 Parties’ performance of their continuing rights and obligations hereunder. The order and judgment

17 will be deemed final only upon expiration of the time to appeal, or, if a Notice of Appeal is filed,

18 upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writs of certiorari. Such final order and judgment

19 shall:

20

a. Dismiss with prejudice all complaints in the action as to the Released

21

Persons;

22

b. Order that all SCMs are enjoined from asserting against any Released

23

Person any and all claims which the SCMs have, had, or may have in the

24

future arising out of the facts alleged in the complaint;

25

c. Release each Released Person from the claims which any SCM has, had or

26

may have in the future, against such Released Person arising out of the facts

27

alleged in the related complaints;

28

d. Determine that this Stipulation of Settlement is entered into in good faith, is

-8-

AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 9 of 19

1

reasonable, fair and adequate, and is in the best interest of the Class; and

2

e. Reserve the Court’s continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties to

3

this Stipulation of Settlement, including Defendants and all SCMs, to

4

administer, supervise, construe and enforce the Stipulation of Settlement in

5

accordance with the terms for the mutual benefit of all the Parties.

6

34. The Parties will take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain preliminary

7 approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, final approval of the settlement, and dismissal of the

8 action with prejudice. If the Court finally approves this Stipulation of Settlement, and if there is an

9 appeal from such decision, the Defendants will actively cooperate with Plaintiffs in joint efforts to

10 defend the Stipulation of Settlement.

11

IV.

12

RESOLUTION AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

13

35. The Parties have agreed that certain sums will be paid by or on behalf of the

14 COUNTY to resolve all claims of all SCMs as described in Paragraph 26, and that the total of all

15 such sums shall not exceed Six Million, One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($6,150,000.00)

16 including the fees and costs of Class Counsel and the cost of administration of this settlement.

17

36. Class Counsel and the SCMs, by and through the Representative Plaintiff, have

18 determined that the following distribution of the sum described in Paragraph 35 is appropriate, in

19 which determination the Released Persons acquiesce: (1) Up to Four Million, Seven Hundred

20 Thousand Dollars ($4,700,000.00) will be allocated to pay verified claims, including Seventy-Five

21 Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) for the Representative Plaintiff; (2) the sum of One Million, One

22 Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($1,175,000.00) will be allocated to pay Class Counsel’s

23 fees and costs; (3) Up to Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000.00) will be

24 allocated to pay the costs of administration, including all notices to the classes and processing,

25 administration and payment of the SCM’s claims. Distribution of the settlement amount is subject

26 to the further terms and conditions of this Stipulation of Settlement.

27

37. No payment shall be made to eligible SCMs before the Effective Date. Claims may

28 be processed between the date of preliminary Court approval and the Effective Date. Claims will
-9AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 10 of 19

1 only be paid after all verified Claims have been calculated and all disputes relating to Claims have

2 been resolved.

3

38. No payment shall be paid to Class Counsel for fees and costs before the Effective

4 Date as more fully described in Paragraph 10.

5

39. The Parties agree to make an application to the Court to appoint the Administrator

6 as an officer of the Court for the purpose of implementing the terms of the Stipulation of

7 Settlement. The Administrator shall be subject to judicial immunity to the fullest extent permitted

8 by law.

9

V.

10

PROCEDURES FOR RECEIVING PAYMENT

UNDER THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

11

12

40. All Group Search Class members, as defined in Paragraph 18a, booked on a VDW

13 Felony Offense during Class Period 1 or arrested for a VDW Felony Offense in ALAMEDA

14 COUNTY during the five (5) years prior to their Class Period 1 booking, or who, at the time of

15 their Class Period 1 booking, were required to submit to a search of their person as a condition of

16 probation or parole, upon return of a verified Claim Form, shall, for each Class Period 1 booking

17 and pre-arraignment GROUP SEARCH, up to a maximum of two, become eligible to receive the

18 sum of Thirty-Five Dollars ($35.00).

19

41. All Group Search Class members, as defined in Paragraph 18a, booked during Class

20 Period 1 on a VDW Misdemeanor Offense or arrested for a VDW Misdemeanor Offense in

21 ALAMEDA COUNTY during the five (5) years prior to their Class Period 1 booking, and who, at

22 the time of their Class Period 1 booking, were not required to submit to a search of their person as

23 a condition of probation or parole, upon return of a verified Claim Form, shall, for each Class

24 Period 1 booking and pre-arraignment GROUP SEARCH, up to a maximum of two, become

25 eligible to receive the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00).

26

42. All Illegal Search Class members, as defined in Paragraph 18b, booked during

27 Class Period 2 on a non-VDW Felony Offense, except those who, at the time of such Class Period

28 2 booking, had been arrested on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense in ALAMEDA
-10AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 11 of 19

1 COUNTY during the preceding five (5) years, or who, at the time of such Class Period 2 booking,

2 were required to submit to a search of their person as a condition of probation or parole, upon

3 return of a verified Claim Form, shall, for each Class Period 2 booking and pre-arraignment

4 ILLEGAL SEARCH, up to a maximum of two, become eligible to receive the sum of One

5 Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00).

6

43. All Illegal Search Class members, as defined in Paragraph 18b, booked during

7 Class Period 2 on a non-VDW Misdemeanor Offense, except those who, at the time of such Class

8 Period 2 booking, had been arrested on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense in ALAMEDA

9 COUNTY during the preceding five (5) years, who, at the time of such Class Period 2 booking,

10 were required to submit to a search of their person as a condition of probation or parole, upon

11 return of a verified Claim Form, shall, for each Class Period 2 booking and pre-arraignment

12 ILLEGAL SEARCH, up to a maximum of two, become eligible to receive the sum of One

13 Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00).

14

44. In addition to the sums specified in Paragraph 42, all SCMs described in said

15 Paragraph will become eligible to receive additional sums, referred to as “Minor Enhancements,”

16 of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250), for each applicable condition, if they were under 21 or over

17 60 years of age at the time of their strip search(es) and/or appropriately indicate on their Claim

18 Form, and the COUNTY has no information to the contrary, that, at the time of the search which is

19 the subject of the claim, they were suffering from a mental or physical disability, and/or were

20 required to remove religious garments. Such SCM’s will also become eligible to receive an

21 additional sums, referred to as “Major Enhancements,” of Five Hundred Dollars ($500), if they

22 appropriately indicate on their Claim Form, and the COUNTY has no information to the contrary,

23 that, at the time of the search which is the subject of the claim, they were either more than two (2)

24 months pregnant or menstruating.

25

45. In addition to the sums specified in Paragraph 43, all SCMs described in said

26 Paragraph will become eligible to receive additional sums, referred to as “Major Enhancements,”

27 of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for each applicable condition, if they were under 21 or over 60

28 years of age at the time of their strip search(es) and/or they appropriately indicate on their Claim
-11AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 12 of 19

1 Forms, and the COUNTY has no information to the contrary, that, at the time of the search which

2 is the subject of the claim, they were suffering from a mental or physical disability, were required

3 to remove religious garments and/or were either more than two (2) months pregnant or

4 menstruating.

5

46. In addition to the payments described in Paragraphs 42 through 45, SCMs described

6 in Paragraphs 42 and 43 may become eligible to receive amounts, to be determined by negotiations

7 between Class Counsel and COUNTY’s Counsel, of not less than Five Thousand Dollars

8 ($5,000.00) or more than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), if, at the time that they

9 submit a timely Claim Form to the Administrator, they also submit medical or psychological

10 records or reports of licensed physicians, psychologists, marriage, family and child counselors or

11 clinical social workers establishing that, within Ninety (90) days after the ILLEGAL SEARCH

12 which is the subject of their claim, they received treatment for a physical, emotional or

13 psychological injury caused by the ILLEGAL SEARCH. All documentation of such claimed

14 injuries will be provided to Counsel for the COUNTY, who will be afforded a reasonable period of

15 time to investigate each such claim, including taking depositions and obtaining additional records.

16 In the event that Class Counsel and County’s Counsel cannot agree on an amount to resolve the

17 claim of any SCM described in this Paragraph, all documentation pertaining to that SCM’s claim

18 shall be submitted to the Special Master, along with each Counsel’s proposed amount for an

19 award, and the Special Master shall determine the amount of the award, based upon the documents

20 submitted to him.

21

47. The total of all payments described in Paragraphs 40 and 41 shall not exceed the

22 sum of Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($625,000.00). This amount shall be referred

23 to as the “Group Search Claim Fund.” The total of all payments described in Paragraphs 42

24 through 46 shall not exceed the sum of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00). This amount shall

25 be known as the “Illegal Search Claim Fund.”

26

48. The Administrator shall determine whether or not a person who has submitted a

27 Claim Form is an SCM and shall reject claims by persons who are not SCMs.

28 \\\
-12AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 13 of 19

1

49. After the Bar Date, the Administrator will determine the total amount owed from

2 the Group Search Claim Fund to all SCM’s who have filed valid claim forms for payments from

3 that Fund. In the event that the total amount owed for claims made by SCMs eligible to receive

4 payments from the Group Search Claim Fund exceeds the amount of that Fund, Administrator will

5 reduce the amount which each SCM will receive for each eligible booking and pre-arraignment

6 GROUP SEARCH so that the total of all payments does not exceed the amount of the Group

7 Search Claim Fund. Such reductions shall be made in accordance with the following formula: (1)

8 All persons submitting claims entitled to a payment as described in Paragraph 40 shall be credited

9 with Thirty-Five (35) points for each booking and pre-arraignment GROUP SEARCH they

10 underwent during Class Period 1, up to a maximum of Seventy (70) points; (2) All persons

11 submitting claims entitled to a payment as described in Paragraph 41 shall be credited with Two

12 Hundred (200) points for each booking and pre-arraignment GROUP SEARCH they underwent

13 during Class Period 1, up to a maximum of Four Hundred (400) points; (3) The points assigned to

14 all SCM’s will be totaled and divided into the sum of Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars

15 ($625,000.00) to determine the monetary value of each point. (4) Each SCM’s points will be

16 multiplied by the monetary value of each point to determine his or her recovery from the Group

17 Search Claim Fund.

18

50. After the Bar Date, the Administrator will determine the total amount owed from

19 the Illegal Search Claim Fund to all SCM’s who have filed valid claim forms for payments from

20 that Fund. In the event that the total amount owed for claims made by SCMs eligible to receive

21 payments from the Illegal Search Claim Fund exceeds the amount of that Fund, Administrator will

22 reduce the amount which each SCM, except those described in Paragraph 46, will receive for each

23 eligible booking and pre-arraignment ILLEGAL SEARCH, so that the total of all payments does

24 not exceed the amount of the Illegal Search Claim Fund. Such reductions shall be made in

25 accordance with the following formula: (1) The amounts owed to persons eligible for payments

26 described in Paragraph 46 shall be deducted from the Illegal Search Claim Fund, and the resulting

27 amount shall be referred to as the “Net Illegal Search Fund;” (2) All persons entitled to a payment

28 as described in Paragraphs 42 and 44, except those entitled to payments described in Paragraph 46,
-13AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 14 of 19

1 shall be credited with Four (4) points for each booking and pre-arraignment GROUP SEARCH

2 they underwent during Class Period 2, up to a maximum of Eight (8) points and One (1) point for

3 each Minor Enhancement and Two (2) points for each Major Enhancement for which they are

4 eligible pursuant to Paragraph 44; (2) All persons entitled to a payment as described in Paragraphs

5 43 and 45 shall be credited with Six (6) points for each booking and pre-arraignment ILLEGAL

6 SEARCH they underwent during Class Period 2, up to a maximum of Twelve (12) points, and

7 Two (2) points for each Major Enhancement for which they are eligible pursuant to Paragraph 45;

8 (3) The points assigned to all SCM’s will be totaled and divided into the amount of the Net Illegal

9 Search Fund to determine the monetary value of each point; (4) Each SCM’s points will be

10 multiplied by the monetary value of each point to determine his or her recovery from the Illegal

11 Search Claim Fund.

12

51. Any SCM who fails to submit a Claim Form completed in accordance with the

13 instructions contained therein by the Bar Date or any other Court mandated extension, shall be

14 forever barred from receiving any payment pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. Such SCM

15 shall, in all other respects, be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Stipulation of

16 Settlement, and the judgment entered herein, including but not limited to the release of all

17 Released Persons of all claims resolved herein.

18

52. The Administrator will determine the point value to be assigned to each eligible

19 SCM based upon the Administrator’s review of the Claim Forms and the information in the

20 database provided by Defendants.

21

VI.

22

PAYMENT OF DEBTS OWED TO THE COUNTY FROM AWARDS

23

53. All awards to SCMs paid from the Illegal Search Fund shall be subject to deduction

24 for any Debts Owed as described in Paragraph 10, up to a maximum of Fifty Percent (50%) of the

25 net recovery after any reduction as provided in Paragraph 58. The COUNTY shall provide to the

26 Administrator and Class Counsel, a list of all qualified SCMs who have Debts Owed and who

27 submit valid claims, with the amount and nature of the Debt Owed. The Administrator shall

28 deduct from each SCM’s award the amount of the specified Debt Owed, up to a maximum of Fifty
-14AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 15 of 19

1 Percent (50%) of the net recovery after any reduction as provided in Paragraph 58. The

2 Administrator shall reduce the SCMs’ payments and forward to COUNTY or other appropriate

3 agency the amounts deducted from the SCM’s awards based upon the unpaid Debts Owed. Copies

4 of the information related to the Debts Owed and the reduction of the awards shall be provided to

5 the SCMs with copies to Class Counsel. Any SCM may submit a written objection to the Debts

6 Owed within thirty (30) days of the date that settlement checks are distributed. The written

7 objection shall specify the grounds for the objection and copies shall be sent to Class Counsel and

8 Defendants’ Counsel. In the event that the SCM, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel cannot

9 informally resolve the objection, the objection will be submitted to the Special Master. The fees of

10 the Special Master for resolving such objections shall be paid as a cost of administration of the

11 settlement.

12

VII.

13

GENERAL CLAIM PROCEDURES

14

54. To receive payment an SCM shall be required to submit to the Administrator an

15 executed Claim Form, signed under penalty of perjury.

16

55. The Claim Form shall be submitted by first class mail and shall be deemed

17 submitted upon the date of the postmark thereon.

18

56. COUNTY will have a period of Forty-Five (45) days from the date each Claim

19 Form is received by its counsel to check each SCM who submits a claim for recovery from the

20 ILLEGAL SEARCH fund against the California Department of Justice criminal history database

21 for convictions or unresolved criminal charges for VDW offenses during the five (5) year period

22 preceding the date of the booking which is the subject of the claim. Any SCM with such criminal

23 history will be ineligible for any payments described in Paragraphs 42 through 46, but shall receive

24 payment, as appropriate, under Paragraph 40 and/or Paragraph 41.

25

57. SCMs who submit claims and whose names appear on the database will be paid by

26 mail at the address specified on the Claim Form. The Representative Plaintiff shall be deemed

27 fully compensated by the distribution for him to Class Counsel of the sum of Seventy-Five

28 Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), and he shall not be permitted or required to submit a Claim Form.
-15AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 16 of 19

1

58. Any recovery for which an SCM who submits a claim for recovery from the

2 ILLEGAL SEARCH fund is eligible shall be reduced by 50% if the SCM was sentenced and

3 confined in any California County jail or in a California State Penitentiary or Correctional

4 Institution for any period of time during the Five (5) years preceding the earliest ILLEGAL

5 SEARCH or GROUP SEARCH during the applicable class period.

6

59. Payments to SCMs who are confined to an Alameda County jail facility at the time

7 of payment will be made to the SCM’s jail commissary account.

8

VIII.

9

EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

10

60. Any potential SCM who wishes to be excluded from one of the Settlement Classes

11 described in Paragraph 19 must file a Request for Exclusion from the class with the Clerk of the

12 Court, on or before the Bar Date or as the Court may otherwise direct. The Representative

13 Plaintiff may not request exclusion pursuant to this paragraph.

14

61. Any potential SCM who does not timely file a Request for Exclusion shall

15 conclusively be deemed to have become an SCM and to be bound by this Stipulation of Settlement

16 any by all subsequent proceedings, orders, and judgments herein.

17

62. Any SCM who does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but

18 need not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. SCMs who do not enter an

19 appearance will be represented by Class Counsel.

20

63. The Defendants may, in their sole discretion, withdraw from the Stipulation of

21 Settlement if the number of Opt-Outs from the Group Search Class exceeds Twenty-Five (25) or if

22 the number of Opt-Outs from the Illegal Search Class exceeds Fifteen (15). Defendants will

23 advise the Court of their election no less than Fifteen (15) days prior to fairness hearing. If

24 Defendants withdraw pursuant to this provision of Stipulation of Settlement, the Stipulation of

25 Settlement will be null and void.

26 \\\

27 \\\

28 \\\
-16AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 17 of 19

1

IX.

2

OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

3

64. Any SCM who does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but

4 need not, submit comments or objections to the proposed settlement. The Court will enter an

5 appropriate order setting forth the procedure for SCMs to submit comments or objections to the

6 proposed settlement.

7

X.

8

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

9

65. Class Counsel shall receive a total award of One Million One Hundred Seventy-

10 Five Thousand Dollars ($1,175,000.00) for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incident to

11 prosecuting this action, inclusive of any costs and fees incurred in seeking final approval of this

12 Stipulation of Settlement and the defense thereof in any court or jurisdiction. Payment will be

13 made as follows: Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($587,500.00) will

14 be paid within Thirty (30) days of the Effective Date by check made payable to the Law Office of

15 Mark E Merin and delivered to Class Counsel at 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814.

16 The remaining Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($587,500.00) will be

17 paid at the time of distribution of settlement funds to the SCMs by delivery of a check made

18 payable and delivered as specified above. This award is subject to the approval of the Court.

19

XI.

20

NOTICE

21

66. Notice to SCMs defined in Paragraph 18, including a Claim Form with a postage

22 pre-paid return envelope, shall be by first class mail, postage prepaid, to all individuals whose

23 addresses are on record in databases maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

24 and/or the Alameda County Information Technology Department, or to such other, better addresses

25 identified by the Administrator. Such information will be provided to the Administrator, subject to

26 the protective order referred to in Paragraph 22. Both Parties and the Administrator will exercise

27 their best efforts to update and to verify addresses, including but not limited to addresses of SCMs

28 who are incarcerated. This paragraph shall not limit further appropriate efforts to provide notice.
-17AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 18 of 19

1

67. Follow-up reminder post cards shall be delivered by first class mail 45 days after

2 initial notice is given to the last known address of all SCMs who have not returned a Claim Form

3 by that date. Such reminder post cards need not be sent to SCM’s whose original notice and Claim

4 Form were returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and for whom the

5 Administrator has no alternative address.

6

68. The Administrator shall cause to be published in the Oakland Tribune, the Hayward

7 Daily Review and the Tri-Valley Herald, and in such free additional publications calculated to

8 reach the SCMs, once per week in each of three consecutive weeks notices, in a form and manner

9 agreed to by the Parties, describing this settlement, the claims procedure, and the procedure to

10 object and/or to opt-out of the settlement. If the Parties cannot agree on the wording of the Notice,

11 the Special Master will determine the content of the Notice to be published.

12

XIII.

13

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

14

69. All reasonable costs incurred in the administration of this Stipulation of Settlement

15 including but not limited to, the fees of the Administrator, costs of disseminating notice to class

16 members, by mail, publication, or other means agreed to by the Parties, costs of producing notice

17 to be posted, costs of reviewing and evaluating claims, including the cost of distribution of the

18 monetary payments to the class members, fees of the Special Master for services rendered in

19 connection with Paragraph 53, and any additional ancillary administration fees, will be paid up to

20 the total amount of Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000.00) allocated for

21 these expenses.

22

70. Following preliminary Court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, the

23 Administrator shall submit monthly invoices to the Risk Management Unit of County of Alameda,

24 with copies to Class Counsel, for services rendered and for expense reimbursement. All invoices

25 will indicate the dates upon which services were performed, the titles of the employees performing

26 the services, the number of hours worked by each title on each date, the hourly rate for each such

27 title, and the total fee for the services performed. The rates will be in accordance with the

28 agreement between the Parties and the Claims Administrator.
-18AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 39 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 19 of 19

1

71. In the event that the total charges against the Administration Fund does not exceed

2 Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000.00) after all Claims have been paid, and

3 all Administration has been completed, any remaining funds will be returned to Defendant

4 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA or its designee.

5

72 In the event that the total amount of claims paid from either the Group Class

6 Settlement Fund or the Illegal Search Settlement Fund is less than the amounts of those funds

7 specified in Paragraph 43, the amount of the remaining funds will be returned to Defendant

8 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA or its designee.

9 DATED: June 18, 2007

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

10

/s/ - “Mark E. Merin”

By: _______________________________

11

MARK E. MERIN, ESQ.

12

Attorney for Plaintiffs

13 DATED: June 18, 2007 14 15 16 17 18 19

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Professional Corporation
/s/ - “Gregory J. Rockwell” By: _______________________________
GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-19AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

 
 Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 43 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 3

1 MARK E. MERIN, ESQ. (SBN 043849) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
2 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5 GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305)
6 BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A Professional Corporation
7 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P. O. Box 12925
8 Oakland, CA 94604-2925 Telephone: (510) 834-4350
9 Facsimile: (510) 839-1897

10 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA
11 COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself )

15 and all those similarly situated;

)

)

16

Plaintiffs,

)

)

17 vs.

)

)

18 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA )

COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

)

19 PLUMMER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND )

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ALAMEDA

)

20 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 1 )

THROUGH 50, AND ROES 1 THROUGH )

21 20, INCLUSIVE,

)

)

22

Defendants.

)

)

23

Case No.: C 06 0310 MMC
PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION

24

Based on the Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class

25 and Settlement of Class Action and Order thereon, and good cause appearing therefore:

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that personnel of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

27 and the Information Technology Department of the County of Alameda who are authorized to

28 access records in the databases of criminal histories of individuals maintained by the Alameda
-1PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 43 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 County Sheriff’s Department, the Inmate Profile System (IPS) or in the Criminal Justice

2 Information System (CJIS) may access those records for the purposes of determining the identities

3 of the individual members of the Settlement Class, their last known addresses (including persons

4 incarcerated at facilities in the state of California), date of birth, social security number, dates of

5 booking, charges and information reflecting whether the Settlement Class Member was on

6 searchable probation at the time of booking of all Settlement Class Members arrested during the

7 Class Periods.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that personnel of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

9 and the Information Technology Department of the County of Alameda are hereby authorized to

10 disclose to Class Counsel, to counsel for defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and to the duly

11 appointed Claims Administrator in the above action all information set forth in the preceding

12 paragraph in order to provide notice to Settlement Class Members, to assist with efforts to update

13 and verify addresses, including but not limited to addresses of Settlement Class Members who are

14 incarcerated, and to apply the reduction categories set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and

15 Order for preliminary approval of settlement of class action. The Claims Administrator shall not

16 disclose that information to any third party save and except to assist with efforts to update and

17 verify addresses to provide notice to Settlement Class Members.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any access by personnel of the Alameda County

19 Sheriff’s Department and the Information Technology Department of the County of Alameda of

20 the records in databases of criminal histories of individuals maintained by the Alameda County

21 Sheriff’s Department, the Inmate Profile System (IPS) or in the Criminal Justice Information

22 System (CJIS) and the provision of information acquired from such access to the Claims

23 Administrator, Class Counsel or counsel for defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA pursuant to this

24 order shall not be a violation of California Penal Code section 11105, et seq., the constitutional or

25 statutory right to privacy of Settlement Class Members or any other provision of law which would

26 otherwise deem that information privileged and confidential.

27 \\\

28 \\\
-2PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 43 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 3

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated: June _2_0, 2007

3

4

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY

Judge, United States District Judge

5

Northern District of California

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-3PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

 
 Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 5

1 MARK E. MERIN, ESQ (SBN 043849) CATHLEEN A. WILLIAMS, ESQ. (SBN 068029)
2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 2001 P Street, Suite 100
3 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
4 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6 GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305) BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE
7 A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800
8 P. O. Box 12925 Oakland, CA 94604-2925
9 Telephone: (510) 834-4350 Facsimile: (510) 839-1897
10 Attorneys for Defendants
11 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

16 DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself )

and all those similarly situated;

)

17

)

Plaintiffs,

)

18

)

vs.

)

19

)

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA )

20 COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C.

)

PLUMMER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND )

21 OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ALAMEDA

)

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 1 )

22 THROUGH 50, AND ROES 1 THROUGH )

20, INCLUSIVE,

)

23

)

Defendants.

)

24

)

Case No.: C 06 0310 MMC
ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
DATE: November 16, 2007 TIME: 9:00 a.m. CTRM: 7 JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

25

This matter came on regularly for a Fairness Hearing on November 16, 2007, in Courtroom

26 7 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney presiding. Plaintiff Class was

27 represented by Class Counsel Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin; Defendants

28 were represented by Gregory J. Rockwell of the firm Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe.
-1AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 5

1

After considering the submissions of the parties, including the Stipulated Motion for

2 Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action, together

3 with the extensive exhibits attached thereto; the unopposed Application of Plaintiff’s Class

4 Counsel for Award of Attorneys= Fees and Costs; the Joint Submission of the Parties in Support of

5 Final Approval of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement; the arguments of counsel; the

6 submission from the Class Claims Administrator, and the objections to the settlement filed with

7 the Court,

8

IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

9

1. On June 20, 2007, this Court entered its order preliminarily approving settlement of

10 the above-captioned class action. Since the entry of the Court=s Preliminary Order, in accordance

11 with the Amended Stipulation of Settlement as proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the requisite

12 notice of the Settlement, with opt-out and objection information, was published in the East Bay

13 Express on July 18, 25 and August 1, 2007, and in the Daily Review, the Oakland Tribune, and the

14 Tri-Valley Herald on July 19, 25, and 31, 2007. The notice of the Settlement and approved claim

15 forms, were posted by First Class Mail to the last-known address of each person in the Settlement

16 Class. Both the published notice and the mailed notice specified that Claim Forms had to be

17 delivered to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later than October 11, 2007.

18

2. Both the published and mailed notices specified that any person who chooses to

19 object to the Settlement, either personally or through counsel, and desired to appear at the Fairness

20 Hearing, was required to submit a Notice of Intention to appear, together with written arguments in

21 support of any objection, by October 11, 2007. Five written objections were received by counsel

22 and filed with the Court.

23

3. The Court finds that the Class should be and hereby is certified under Rule 23(a)

24 and Rule 23(b)(3) because it satisfies all of the requirements for certification as recited by the

25 Court in the hearing on the fairness of the settlement on November 16, 2007.

26

4. The Court is satisfied from all of the memoranda of law, declarations, and exhibits

27 submitted to the Court that the Amended Stipulation of Settlement is fair, and the Court now finds

28 for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on November 16, 2007, that the Amended

-2AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 3 of 5

1 Stipulation of Settlement is fair and finally approves it as such. The Amended Stipulation of

2 Settlement is incorporated herein by this reference as if set out in full.

3

5. The “Settlement Class” means all of those persons who are members of the

4 following defined classes who, during the class periods identified below, were booked at Alameda

5 County Santa Rita or Glenn Dyer Jails, assigned to a housing unit and strip searched at said

6 facilities prior to arraignment on the charges for which they were booked:

7

a. The following persons shall be referred to as the “Group Search Class”: (1)

8

All arrestees booked into Santa Rita Jail during Class Period 1 on a Felony

9

involving violence, drugs or weapons (“VDW”), or on a VDW Misdemeanor

10

Offense, who were assigned to a housing unit and who underwent a GROUP

11

SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on which they were booked during

12

Class Period 1 (January 17, 2004, through December 31, 2006); (2) All arrestees

13

booked into Santa Rita Jail during Class Period 1 on a non-VDW Offense, but who,

14

during the Five (5) years prior to such Class Period 1 booking, had been arrested in

15

ALAMEDA COUNTY on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense, or who, at the

16

time of such Class Period 1 booking, were required to submit to a search of their

17

person as a condition of parole or probation, who were assigned to a housing unit

18

and who underwent a GROUP SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on

19

which they were booked during Class Period 1.

20

b. The following persons shall be referred to as the “Illegal Search Class”: All

21

arrestees booked into Santa Rita or Glenn Dyer Jails during Class Period 2 (January

22

17, 2004, through August 31, 2006) on a non-VDW Felony or Misdemeanor

23

Offense, except those who, at the time of such Class Period 2 booking, had been

24

arrested in ALAMEDA COUNTY in the Five (5) years prior to such Class Period 2

25

booking on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense, or who, at the time of such

26

Class Period 2 booking, were required to submit to a search of their person as a

27

condition of parole or probation, who were assigned to a housing unit and who

28

underwent an ILLEGAL SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on which

-3AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 4 of 5

1

they were booked during Class Period 2.

2

6. Persons who previously commenced civil litigation challenging the legality of any

3 strip search at the Alameda County jails during the class period and have prevailed, settled or had

4 their complaints denied on their merits, and persons who have given timely notice of their election

5 to be excluded from the Settlement Class are not included in the Settlement Class.

6

7. With the exception of the five individuals identified on Exhibit A hereto, who

7 submitted timely requests to the Claims Administrator to opt out of the Amended Stipulation of

8 Settlement, all claims and complaints of the named Representative Plaintiff, together with all

9 persons in the Settlement Class, are now dismissed with prejudice as to all of the Released

10 Persons, defined to include all Defendants, their predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together

11 with past, present and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys and/or agents of the

12 County of Alameda. Claims and complaints of such persons are now forever barred, and all

13 Settlement Class Members are enjoined from asserting against any Released Persons any and all

14 claims which the Settlement Class Members had, have, or may have in the future arising out of the

15 facts alleged in the complaint.

16

8. Each Released Person is released from the claims which any Settlement Class

17 Member has had or may in the future have against any such Released Persons arising out of the

18 facts in the complaint.

19

9. This Court explicitly finds that the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, which is

20 now made final by this Judgment, was entered into in good faith, is fair and reasonable, and

21 adequate, and is in the best interest of the Class. The Court expressly finds the amount of

22 attorney’s fees and costs sought to be fair and reasonable and expressly approves payment to class

23 counsel, Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, in the amount of One Million, One

24 Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($1,175,000.00), as and for attorney fees and costs, for

25 the representation of Settlement Class Members herein, to be paid as provided in the Amended

26 Stipulation of Settlement.

27

10. The Court further explicitly approves payment from the payment fund of a total of

28 Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) to be distributed to the Representative Plaintiff,

-4AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 5 of 5

1 Daniel Schaffer, as specified in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement; however, if the amount

2 allocated for the payment of approved claims of Settlement Class Members is not adequate to pay

3 all claims without pro-rata reduction, the payment to the Representative Plaintiff shall be reduced

4 by up to Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) or the amount necessary fully to satisfy all

5 claims, whichever is less. The Court finds the amount is fair and adequate in view of the damages

6 suffered by the Representative Plaintiff and the efforts he expended in litigating this case in the

7 more than two years from the time the original claim was filed.

8

11. Claims have been submitted and, in accordance with the claims processing

9 procedure specified in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, will be reviewed, valued, and paid

10 by the Claims Administrator from funds provided by the Defendants as soon as practicable

11 following the effective date of this Judgment, meaning the date it is entered and becomes final.

12 Such Judgment will be deemed final only upon the expiration of the time to appeal or, if a notice

13 of appeal is filed in this matter, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writ of certiorari.

14

12. The Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties in this

15 action, including Defendants and all Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe

16 and enforce the Settlement in accordance with the terms for the mutual benefit of all of the parties.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint in this

18 action be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be and the same hereby is entered pursuant

19 to the terms of this Order.

20 Dated: November 26, 2007

21

______________________________________

22

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY Judge, United States District Court

23

Northern District of California

24

25

26

27

28
-5AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2

Schaffer v Alameda County Opt Outs Exhibit B A
November 5, 2007

Opt outs from people identified on the Mailing List

ClaimID
1 ALMD110078860 2 ALMD110176667 3 ALMD110276750 4 ALMD120012039

FirstName
MICHAEL SHANNON RAHILA RUBY DAVID BON JEMAR ABDUL

LastName
WILSON #F60569 JARRETT LE WOODS

Opt out from a person not identified on the Mailing List

ClaimID

FirstName

5 ALMD190007085 ROOSEVELT

LastName MITCHELL, JR.

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 1 of 13
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,MEDTERM
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−00310−MMC

Schaffer v. County of Alameda et al Assigned to: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney Case in other court: 09−15739 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Daniel Schaffer on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated

Date Filed: 01/17/2006 Date Terminated: 11/26/2007 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Employment Regulation &Administration Section 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/324−8630 Email: Jeffrey.Schwarzschild@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 11/15/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Merin , Esq. Law Office of Mark E. Merin 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916−443−6911 Fax: 916−447−8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Isaac Schwarzchild Law Office of Mark E. Merin 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443−6911 Fax: (916) 447−8336 TERMINATED: 11/15/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Alameda
Defendant

represented by Gregory J. Rockwell Boornazian Jensen &Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P.O. Box 12925 Oakland, CA 94604−2925 510−834−4350 Fax: 510−839−1897 Email: grockwell@bjg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 2 of 13

Charles C. Plummer Alameda County Sheriff in his Individual and Official Capacities

Gregory J. Rockwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies

Claimant Robert Anderson

represented by Robert Anderson Correctional Training Facility P−17452 P.O. Box 689 DW −229L Soledad, CA 93960−0689 PRO SE

Date Filed 01/17/2006
01/17/2006 01/17/2006
01/17/2006 01/30/2006 03/08/2006 03/29/2006 03/30/2006 03/30/2006 03/31/2006 04/06/2006 04/14/2006 04/18/2006

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL against County of Alameda, Charles C. Plummer, Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies ( Filing fee $ 250.00, receipt number 3380515.). Filed byDaniel Schaffer. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/17/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2006 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
Summons Issued as to County of Alameda, Charles C. Plummer. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/14/2006. Case Management Conference set for 4/21/2006 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/17/06. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/17/2006) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
3 CLERK'S NOTICE to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) by e−mail re: Failure to E−File/E−Mail Complaint and/or Failure to Register as an E−Filer (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/30/2006) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
4 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCounty of Alameda. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/8/2006) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Daniel Schaffer. County of Alameda served on 2/9/2006, answer due 3/1/2006; Charles C. Plummer served on 2/9/2006, answer due 3/1/2006. (Schwarzschild, Jeffrey) (Filed on 3/29/2006) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
6 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options for defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/30/2006) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
7 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCharles C. Plummer. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/30/2006) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
8 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
9 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 4/18/06 at 9:30 a.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2006) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
10 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 4/14/2006) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
11 STIPULATION FOR PARTIES TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/18/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 3 of 13

04/18/2006 04/19/2006 04/21/2006
05/09/2006 05/10/2006 10/19/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 12/01/2006 01/22/2007 01/31/2007
01/31/2007 01/31/2007 04/17/2007 04/23/2007
04/23/2007

ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference conducted on 4/18/06 by RWS. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2006) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
12 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The April 21, 2006 conference will be telephonic; the Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 19, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
13 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 4/21/2006 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 4/21/2006), Case referred to mediation. Mediation to be completed by 12/1/2006. Case Management Statement due by 4/20/2007. Class Certification Motion due by 2/2/2007. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/27/2007 10:30 AM. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Hearing set for 3/9/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/21/2006) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
14 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Michael W. Bien as Mediator. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2006) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
Mediator's office will initiate the Pre MED phone conference on 6/1/2006 at 4:00 p.m. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2006) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
15 NOTICE by County of Alameda, Charles C. Plummer of Unavailability of Gregory J. Rockwell (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 10/19/2006) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
16 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Mark E. Merin, Esq (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
17 ORDER GRANTING SHERIFF CHARLES PLUMMER'S REQUEST TO BE EXCUSED AT MEDIATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 11/15/06. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
18 CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session dated 11/28/2006 by mediator, Michael W. Bien; Mediation session held 11/28/2006; Case did not settle; Mediation process is complete. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
19 STIPULATION Stipulated Request to Reset Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; [Proposed] Order by Daniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
20 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO RESET HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. The deadline for plaintiff to file his motion for class certification is continued from February 2, 2007 to May 4, 2007; the hearing on the motion is continued from March 9, 2007 to June 8, 2007. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 31, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motions deadline due by 5/4/2007. Re 20 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/31/2007) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to Motion Hearing Continued for 6/8/2007 09:00 AM. Re 20 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/31/2007) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
21 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by County of Alameda, Charles C. Plummer. (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 4/17/2007) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
22 ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The case management conference is continued from April 27, 2007 to June 8, 2007. A joint case management statement shall be filed no later than June 1, 2007. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 23, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: A Joint Case Management Statement due by 6/1/2007. Case Management Conference Continued for 6/8/2007 10:30 AM. Re 22 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/24/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 4 of 13

04/27/2007
05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/11/2007
05/11/2007
05/11/2007
05/21/2007 05/25/2007 05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/30/2007
05/31/2007
05/31/2007 06/01/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007

23 Letter dated 4/27/07: from Clerk requesting copy fees. Request form for copies sent to requestor Demetrius Chafford. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/27/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/30/2007 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 04/30/2007)
24 REQUEST for Civil Docket Sheet re 23 Letter. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/3/2007) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL Request for Photocopies form informing Demetrius Chafford that the total cost for his request will be $2.50. Re 23 request (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/3/2007) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
25 MOTION for Settlement −− Notice of Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action filed by Daniel Schaffer. Motion Hearing set for 6/15/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
26 Brief re 25 MOTION for Settlement −− Notice of Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action filed byDaniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
27 Proposed Order re 25 MOTION for Settlement −− Notice of Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action by Daniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
28 Letter dated 5/17/07: from Michael Tuggle re request for copies. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/21/2007) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
30 Letter dated 5/22/07: from Nancy E. Manuel re request for information to join the class action suit. Re 29 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/25/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
29 DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. The Clerk is directed to file a letter dated May 22, 2007 from Nancy E. Manuel and send a copy to counsel for plaintiff. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 29, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 30 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). re 29 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
31 STIPULATION : Stipulated Request to Continue Case Management Conference to the Same Date as the Hearing on the Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement; [Proposed] Order by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
32 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The conference is continued from June 8, 2007 to June 15, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 31, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2007) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference Continued for 6/15/2007 09:00 AM. Re 32 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/31/2007) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
33 DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 1, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2007) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
34 Letter dated 05/24/07: from Kent Charles re requesting information on the Strip Search Law Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/6/2007) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of the 34 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney. Re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/6/2007) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
35 Letter Dated 05/22/07: from Shawndra Star Boode re request information on the Class Action Case. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/6/2007) (Entered: 06/06/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 5 of 13

06/06/2007 06/12/2007
06/15/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/20/2007
06/20/2007 06/20/2007 06/20/2007
06/20/2007 06/20/2007 06/21/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007

Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of the 35 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/6/2007) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
36 MOTION to Amend/Correct ; Amendment to Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action filed by Daniel Schaffer. Motion Hearing set for 6/15/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/12/2007) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
37 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/15/2007 before Maxine M.Chesney (Date Filed: 6/15/2007) re 25 MOTION for Settlement −− Notice of Stipulated Motion for Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action filed by Daniel Schaffer. Fairness Hearing set for 11/16/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Belle Ball.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/15/2007) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
38 Letter from Mark E. Merin re: corrections and clarifications to settlement documents. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/18/2007) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
39 STIPULATION : Amended Stipulation of Settlement by Daniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exhibit 2# 2 Exhibit Amended Exhibit 3)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/18/2007) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
40 Proposed Order : Protective Order for Disclosure of Records and Information by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/18/2007) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
41 *** DISREGARD − FILED IN ERROR IN THIS CASE *** ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 20, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) Modified on 6/20/2007 (mmclc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/20/2007)
42 ERRATA re 39 Stipulation of Settlement −− Second Amended Exhibit 3 by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
43 PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 20, 2007. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
44 ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 20, 2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B) (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
46 Letter dated 06−20−07: from Patrick W. Ford re Unlawful Strip Search Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 46 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
45 AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT by County of Alameda, Charles C. Plummer. Filed Manually per oral order of June 15, 2007 as per chambers (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/21/2007) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
47 Letter dated 6/27/07: from Colette Trotten re request for information regarding class action lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/13/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/16/2007 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 07/16/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy re 47 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney. Re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/13/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
48 Letter dated 07/05/07: from Mark T. Fretwell re request for information on class action suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL copy of 48 Letter from Mark T. Fretwell to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 6 of 13

07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/29/2007 08/29/2007 08/30/2007 08/30/2007 09/18/2007
09/24/2007 09/24/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 10/05/2007 10/05/2007

49 Letter dated 07/19/07: from Larry Estep re Strip Search Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 49 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
50 Letter Post dated 7/26/07: from Michael A. Lumford re Illegal Stripsearch Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/27/2007) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 50 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/27/2007) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
51 Letter dated 07/31/07: from Mark Johnson re request for strip search claim forms. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/3/2007) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 51 letter to Plaintiff(s) Counsel. Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/3/2007) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
52 Letter dated 08/11/07: from Michael Simmons re Strip Search Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/15/2007) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
Sent by U.S MAIL a copy of 52 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/15/2007) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
53 Letter dated 8/19/07 from Michael Anthony Harris re request for information on class action. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
Copy of 53 Letter sent via U.S. Mail to plaintiffs' counsel. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
54 Claim Form against Alameda County filed by Perry Sheppard. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
Copy of 54 Claim Form sent via U.S. Mail to plaintiffs' counsel. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
55 Letter from Sammie L. Page re objections to the settlement. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
Copy of 55 Letter sent via U.S. Mail to plaintiffs' counsel. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
56 Letter dated 8/22/07 from Ronald Edward Smith re objection to proposed settlement. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
Copy of 56 Letter sent via U.S. Mail to plaintiffs' counsel. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
57 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Lee Albert Samprath [filed by plaintiffs' counsel at the written request of Mr. Samprath] by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
58 Letter dated 9/21/07: from Mark Reed re request for strip search claim form. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 9/24/2007) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 58 letter to plaintiffs' counsel re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 9/24/2007) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
59 Letter dated 09/27/07: from Stanley M. Jackson re request for forms to participate in class action. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 9/27/2007) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 59 letter to plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 9/27/2007) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
60 Letter Dated 10/5/07: from Kevin D. West re Strip &Search Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/5/2007) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 60 letter along with the original Class Action Forms from Kevin D. West to Plaintiffs' Attorneys. Re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/5/2007) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 7 of 13

10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/11/2007 10/11/2007 10/12/2007 10/12/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 11/02/2007
11/02/2007
11/05/2007
11/05/2007
11/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/16/2007

61 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Michael DeWayne Sawyer [filed by plaintiffs' counsel at the written request of Mr. Sawyer] by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 10/9/2007) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL the CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM submitted to the court by Daria Belt to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re civil case 06−310 MMC. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL the CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM submitted to the court by Gino Torrez to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re civil case 06−310 MMC. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
62 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION. By Erskine Murphy (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
63 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR AT FAIR HEARING ON NOVEMBER 16, 2007. By Erskine Murphy (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
64 Letter dated 10/7/07: from Timothy L. Shroyer re Strip Search Class Action Suite. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 64 Letter from Timothy L. Shroyer to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
67 Letter dated 10/31/07: from Willie Tolliver Hill re Strip Search Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/31/2007) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL re 67 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/31/2007) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
65 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Class Counsels' Application for Approval of Stipulated Attorney's Fees and Reimbursement of Costs filed by Daniel Schaffer. Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/2/2007) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
66 Declaration of Mark E. Merin in Support of 65 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Class Counsels' Application for Approval of Stipulated Attorney's Fees and Reimbursement of Costs filed byDaniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 65 ) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/2/2007) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
68 Joint MOTION for Settlement : The Parties Joint Submission in Support of Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement filed by Daniel Schaffer. Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/5/2007) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
69 Declaration of Ryanne Fitzgerald in Support of 68 Joint MOTION for Settlement : The Parties Joint Submission in Support of Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement filed byDaniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 68 ) (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/5/2007) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL the CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM submitted to the court by Jason Brandon to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re civil case 06−310 MMC (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/6/2007) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
70 Proposed Order and Judgment of Dismissal by Daniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
71 Minute Entry: Fairness Hearing held on 11/16/2007 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 11/16/2007), Motion Hearing held on 11/16/2007 before Maxine M. Chesney (Date Filed: 11/16/2007) re 68 Joint MOTION for Settlement : The Parties Joint Submission in Support of Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement filed by Daniel Schaffer, 65 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Class Counsels' Application for Approval of Stipulated Attorney's Fees and Reimbursement of Costs filed by Daniel Schaffer, ***Motions terminated: 65 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Class Counsels' Application for Approval of Stipulated Attorney's Fees and

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 8 of 13

11/20/2007 11/26/2007
11/29/2007 11/29/2007 12/11/2007
12/18/2007 12/18/2007 01/02/2008
02/19/2008 02/19/2008
02/27/2008 02/27/2008 02/29/2008 02/29/2008
04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 04/15/2008

Reimbursement of Costs filed by Daniel Schaffer, 68 Joint MOTION for Settlement : The Parties Joint Submission in Support of Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement filed by Daniel Schaffer.. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (tl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/16/2007) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
72 Proposed Order and Judgment of Dismissal −− AMENDED by Daniel Schaffer. (Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/20/2007) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
73 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 26, 2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2007) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
74 Letter dated 11/25/07: from John L. Evans re Strip Search Class Action Law Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/29/2007) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
Sent by U.S. mail a copy of the 74 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/29/2007) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
75 Letter dated 12/7/07: from Terry P. Harding re Request to file late Objections to Notification Procedure and Request for more time to file Claims for Monetary Compensation. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 12/11/2007) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
76 Letter dated 12/17/07: from Terry Lynn Lindsey re Strip Search Class Action Lawsuit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 76 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
77 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CLAIM (LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7, 2007). Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 2, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2008) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
78 Letter dated 2/10/08: from Robert Anderson re request to be included in the instant civil claim. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/19/2008) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 78 Letter by Robert Anderson to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/19/2008) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
79 Letter dated 2/10/08: from Robert Anderson re request to be included in the instant civil claim. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/27/2008) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
Sent by U.S. mail a copy of 79 Letter of Robert Anderson to Plaintiffs' Attorneys' re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/27/2008) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
80 Letter dated 2/24/08: from Wendell Bullock re Request for Class Participation and Inclusion. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/29/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
Sent by U.S. mail a copy of 80 Letter from Wendell Bullock to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/29/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
81 Letter dated 4/4/08: from Shawndra Boode re Status on Class Action Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 81 Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
82 Letter dated 4/2/08: from Brian Keith Barnett re Class action Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/11/2008) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of the 82 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/11/2008) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
83 MOTION to Relate Case Pursuant to Local Rule 3−12(B) filed by County of Alameda, Charles C. Plummer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 4/15/2008) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 9 of 13

04/23/2008
05/23/2008 05/27/2008 06/12/2008 06/12/2008 06/18/2008 06/19/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 07/08/2008 07/08/2008 07/14/2008
07/14/2008
07/16/2008 07/23/2008 07/24/2008 07/28/2008

84 ORDER RELATING CASE. Schaffer v. County of Alameda, C−6−310 MMC, is related to Roth v. County of Alameda, C−08−236. All future filings in Roth v. County of Alameda are to bear the initials MMC immediately after the case number. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 23, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2008) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
85 Letter dated 5/20/08: from Sammy L. Page re Class Action Law Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/23/2008) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
Sent by U.S.Mail a copy of 85 Sammy L. Page's Letter to Plaintiff(s) Counsel. Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 5/27/2008) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
86 Letter dated 6/10/08: from Robert L. Anderson re Class Action Law Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/12/2008) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
87 Sent by U.S. Mail a copy of 86 Letter from Robert L. Anderson to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/12/2008) (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 06/13/2008)
88 Letter dated 6/16/08: from Patrice Andre Fluker re Status on Money Dispursed regarding Class Action Law Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/18/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 88 letter of Patrice Andre Fluker to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s) ; re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
89 Letter dated 6/17/08: from Jeffrey Walker re status of settlement for class action suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/24/2008) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 89 Letter from Jeffrey Walker to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 6/24/2008) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
90 Letter post dated 7/7/08: from Robert Anderson re Class Members Motion to be included in the instant civil claim. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/8/2008) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 90 letter from Robert Anderson to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/8/2008) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
91 ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE ROBERT ANDERSON'S MOTION TO BE INCLUDED IN CIVIL CLAIM; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. The motion is denied, without prejudice to Anderson's submitting an executed Claim Form to the Administrator. The Clerk is directed to send Anderson a Claim Form. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 14, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2008) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2008: # 1 Amended Proof of Service) (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 07/14/2008)
92 ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE WENDELL BULLOCK'S REQUEST FOR CLASS PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. The motion is denied, without prejudice to Bullock's submitting an executed Claim Form to the Administrator. The Clerk is directed to send Bullock a Claim Form. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 14, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2008) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
93 Letter dated 7/14/08 from Sammy Page re status. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2008) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
94 Letter dated 7/21/08 from Robert Andersen. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2008) Modified on 7/29/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
Copy of 73 Order sent to Sammy L. Page. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
95 Letter dated 7/23/08: from Robert Anderson re Strip Search Law Suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/28/2008) (Entered: 07/30/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 10 of 13

07/28/2008 08/19/2008 08/19/2008 10/27/2008 11/06/2008 11/07/2008
11/19/2008
11/21/2008 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 11/26/2008
11/26/2008 12/02/2008 12/08/2008
12/29/2008 01/06/2009

Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 95 letter from Robert Anderson to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 7/28/2008) (Entered: 07/30/2008)
96 Letter dated 8/13/08 from Jeffrey Walker re class action law suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/19/2008) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 96 letter from Jeffrey Walker to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/19/2008) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
97 Letter dated 10/23/08: from Sammy L. Page re Status of Settlement. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/27/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
99 Letter dated 11/4/08: from Sammy L. Page re Supplemental Exparte. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/6/2008) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
98 ORDER DIRECTING CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER PAGE'S EX PARTE MOTION. The Court directs class counsel to file, no later than November 21, 2008, a response to Page's motion, and to serve a copy thereof on Page. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 7, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2008) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
100 Reply Memorandum Class Counsels' Response to Sammie Page's 97 Ex Parte Motion filed byDaniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Proof of Service)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 11/19/2008) Modified on 11/20/2008 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 11/19/2008)
101 Letter dated 11/12/08: from Sammie L. Page re Petition for Writ of Mandamus/Execution 28 U.S. C. Section 1651 Appendix A−E; Designation of Record Dept. 7. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/21/2008) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
102 Letter dated 11/12/08: from Sammie L. Page re Designation of Record Re: Mandamus/Execution. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/21/2008) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
103 AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Sammie L. Page. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/21/2008) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
104 ORDER DENYING SAMMY PAGE'S EX PARTE MOTION; DENYING PAGE'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS/EXECUTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 26, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2008) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/26/2008: # 1 Certificate of Service) (be, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2008)
105 Letter dated 11/24/08: from Janice L. Freeman re class action law suit. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/26/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
Sent by U.S. mail a copy of 105 letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
106 ORDER DIRECTING CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE RESPONSE TO JANICE L. FREEMANS LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2008. Class counsel is directed to file, no later than December 30, 2008, a response to Freeman's letter and to serve a copy thereof on Freeman. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 8, 2008. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
107 RESPONSE to re 106 Order, [Janice L. Freeman's Request] by Daniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to 6, # 2 Proof of Service)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 12/29/2008) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
108 ORDER RE: JANICE L. FREEMAN'S LETTER FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2008. Because Freeman has been provided with a notice of denial by class counsel, the Court will take no further action on the matter. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 6, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/6/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (rbe, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/06/2009)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 11 of 13

01/09/2009 01/30/2009
02/11/2009 02/17/2009
02/19/2009 03/05/2009 03/17/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/17/2009

109 Letter request from Robert Louis Anderson; e−filed as per chambers. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
110 ORDER RE: ROBERT ANDERSON'S LETTER FILED JANUARY 9, 2009. Class counsel is directed to file a response to Anderson's motion, and to serve a copy thereof on Anderson, no later than February 20, 2009. If Anderson wishes to file a reply to class counsel's response, any such reply shall be filed and served on class counsel no later than March 13, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 30, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
111 Reply Memorandum to Robert Anderson's 109 Letter Filed January 9, 2009 filed byDaniel Schaffer. (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 Proof of service)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/11/2009) Modified on 2/12/2009 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 02/11/2009)
112 ORDER RE: CLASS COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO ROBERT ANDERSON'S LETTER FILED JANUARY 9, 2009; DIRECTING CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE; EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR ANDERSON TO FILE REPLY. The Court directs class counsel to file, no later than February 27, 2009, a supplemental response to the Anderson's motion. The deadline for Anderson to file a reply is extended from March 13, 2009 to March 20, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 17, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/17/2009: # 1 proof of service) (tdm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
113 Reply Memorandum Class Counsels' Supplemental Response to Robert Anderson's 109 Letter Filed January 9, 2009 filed byDaniel Schaffer. (Attachments: # 1 Proof)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 2/19/2009) Modified on 2/20/2009 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 02/19/2009)
114 Reply to Class Counsel's Supplemental Response Re: 110 Order Dated January 30, 2009 RE: Robert Anderson's Letter Filed January 9, 2009: Declaration of Robert Anderson filed byError: party not known. E−filed as per Chambers (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
115 ORDER DENYING ROBERT ANDERSON'S MOTION TO APPROVE LATE CLAIM. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 17, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2009) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
116 NOTICE OF APPEAL: DECLARATION OF ROBERT ANDERSON as to 115 Order by Robert Anderson. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/20/2009: # 1 USCA NUMBER: 09−15739) (aaa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
117 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability: DECLARATION OF ROBERT ANDERSON filed by Robert Anderson. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
118 Cover Letter &Transmittal Form: Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 116 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Form)(aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
119 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) re 116 Notice of Appeal (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
120 Copy of 116 Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel and to parties without an e−mailing address (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/15/2009: # 1 Civil Docket) (aaa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
121 ORDER RE: ROBERT ANDERSON'S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Anderson's request for issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied as unnecessary. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 17, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2009) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 12 of 13

04/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/22/2009 05/15/2009
07/10/2009
07/10/2009 07/15/2009 07/22/2009 07/23/2009 08/04/2009 08/07/2009 08/10/2009 08/12/2009 08/31/2009 09/01/2009
09/01/2009 09/08/2009

122 USCA Case Number 09−15739 for 116 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Anderson. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2009) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
123 RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT from the NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. Re 116 Notice of Appeal (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2009) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
124 Mail sent to Robert Anderson returned as undeliverable re 116 Notice of Appeal. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
125 ORDER of USCA: A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant has not paid the docketing and filing fees for this appeal. Within 21 days from the date of entry of this order, appellant shall: (1) file a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) pay $455.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and provide proof of payment to this court; or (3) otherwise show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal will be dismissed. FOR THE COURT; as to 116 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Anderson (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2009) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
126 ORDER of USCA: This appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to the order of this court dated May 13, 2009. A copy of this order to the district court shall constitute the mandate of this court. FOR THE COURT; as to 116 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Anderson (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
127 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel re 126 USCA Order (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
128 Mail sent to Robert Anderson returned as undeliverable re 126 USCA Order, 127 Clerks Letter Spreading Mandate. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
129 Letter dated 7/21/09: from Marc S. Frizzell re Class Action Law Suit. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 129 Letter by Marc S. Frizzell to Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s). Re 33 Order (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
130 Letter dated 7/31/09: from Robert Anderson re Request for Status. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2009) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
Sent a Certified copy of 130 Letter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As per Chambers. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
131 Letter dated 7/30/09: from Robert Anderson re Status on Notice of Appeal. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a certified copy of 131 Letter of Robert Anderson to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As per Chambers (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
132 Letter dated 8/26/09: from Robert Anderson re Request for Status on 116 Notice of Appeal. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2009) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
A change of address reflects on Claimant Robert Anderson's return mailing address. The Clerk has reflected on the Court Docket Mr. Anderson's correct address. Re 132 Letter (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2009) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 126 USCA Order, a copy 127 Clerk's Letter Spreading the Mandate. Re 132 Letter. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2009) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
133 Mail sent to Robert Anderson returned as undeliverable re 126 USCA Order, 127 Clerks Letter Spreading Mandate, 132 Letter. Reason of return PAROLED (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)

Case: 3:06-cv-310 As of: 06/12/2012 01:40 PM PDT 13 of 13

11/12/2009 11/17/2009 11/23/2009 02/10/2010
07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010

134 Letter dated 11/10/09: from Robert Anderson re status of Appeal. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2009) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
Sent by U.S. mail a copy of 126 USCA Order and 127 Clerks letter spreading the mandate to Claimant Mr. Anderson. As per Chambers. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2009) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
135 Mail sent to Robert Anderson returned as undeliverable re 126 USCA Order, 127 Clerks Letter Spreading Mandate. Paroled (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
136 ERRONEOUSLY POSTED:PLEASE DISREGARD Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 116 Notice of Appeal (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2010) Modified on 2/11/2010 (aaa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2010)
137 Letter dated 7/27/10: from David L. Cook re Class Action Law Suit. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2010) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
Sent by U.S. MAIL a copy of 137 David L. Cook's Letter to Plaintiff(s) Attorney. Re 33 Order (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2010) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
138 Letter from Plaintiffs' Attorney to David L. Cook responding to request for information. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice)(Merin, Mark) (Filed on 7/30/2010) (Entered: 07/30/2010)