Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 34

Alan L. Schlosser (SBN 49957) aschlosser@aclunc.org 2 AMER ICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN 3 CALIFORN IA 39 Drumm St. 4 San Francisco, CA 941 11
Telephone: (415) 621 ·2493 5 Facs imile: (415) 255·8437

Brad Selib"nan (State Bar No. 083838) bseligman@impactfund.org Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817) Alvaro D. Soria (SBN 247532) IMPACT FUND 125 Un iversity Ave., Sui te 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 845·3473 Facsimile: (510) 845·3654

6 Oren M. Sell strom (SBN 161074)

osellstrom@lccr.com 7 Kendra Fox·Davis (SBN 248757)

Charles Forster (SBN 252826) 8 LAWYERS ' COMM ITTE E FOR CIV IL

RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BA Y 9 AREA

131 Steuart St., Suite 400 10 San Francisco, CA 94105

II

Telephone: (415) 543·9444 Facsimile: (415) 543·0296

Richard A. Marcantoni o (SBN 139619)
Rmarcantonio@ pub l icadvocates.org
Michell e Natividad Rodriguez (SBN 226683) PUBLI C ADVOCATES, IN C. 131 Steuart SI., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 431·7430 Facsimile: (415) 431 ·1048

12 Attorncys for Plaintiffs SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS , 13 MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE COLEMAN,
PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE.
14

15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

)

18

)

SANT EYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY 19 RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and 20 ALYCE DENIS E PAYNE, on behalfof
21 themselves and all others si milarly situated,

22

Pla intiffs,

23

vs.

)

) Case No.: C·08·230 1 BZ

)

)

)

) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
)

) )

[CLASS ACTION]

)

24 C ITY OF ANTIOCH,

) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

25

Defendant.

) )

)
26 1----------------------------)

27

FIR ST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-2301 BZ

- I-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 34

INTRODUCTION

2

1. The ongoing real estate crisis has made the City of Antioch's homes more

3 affordabl e, especia ll y to federall y subsidi zed "Section 8" households. Many of these households

4 are African-American, and have taken advantage of lower rents so they cou ld move to a safer

5 comm unity with good schools. In just the lasl five years the African-American population in the

6 City of Antioch has doubled, in part the result of a dramatic increase in the number of Section 8

7 ho useholds. The City has reacted with alam1 and hosti lity to the newcomers, choosing to

8 scapegoat them as the cause of economic down turn because they all egedl y bring blight and crim

9 into the community. Powerfu l leaders in the C ity fear its changing racial demographics, looking

10 towards more heavily Afri can-American populated citi es like Richmond as harbingers of the

I I future.

12

2. The City and the Antioch Police Dep3l1ment, incl uding a special unit created to

13 target Section 8 households, have engaged in a concerted campai gn to reduce the African-

14 American Section 8 population and discourage any additional Section 8 families from moving to

15 Antioch. Such efforts include: focusing invest igations of alleged tenant-caused disturbances on

16 A fri can-Ameri can households of Antioch believed to parti cipate in the Section 8 program;

17 so li citing complaints fro m neighbors and ot hers about African-American Section 8 households;

18 and conducting unlawful searches of these residences. This campai gn of harassment and

19 intimidation extends to some of the landlords of these tenants, who are threatened by the Antioch

20 Poli ce Department in letters, caBs, and in person, with criminal and civil liab ility to discourage

2 1 them from renti ng to Sect ion 8 participants. In addition, the Antioch Poli ce Department

22 complains to the local Housin g Authority in charge of the Section 8 program wi th the goal of

23 havi ng participants' Section 8 voucher benefits termi nated.

24

3. This class action is accordingl y bro ught by all African-Americans who have held,

25 currently hold, may hold, or are erroneously regarded by the City and o fficers of the Antioch

26 Police Department as holding, Section 8 hous ing vo uchers and all members of their households

27 who resid e, have resided or will reside, in the City Antioch. Plaintiffs, and the class they

FI RST AM EN DED COMPLA INT C-OH-2301 BZ

-2•

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 3 of 34

represent, charge that the City of Antioch intentionally discrim inatcs against African-American

2 Section 8 households on the basis of their race and/or source of income, and has pursued policies

3 and practices that have an unjustified adverse impact upon them.

4

4. This class action primarily secks to end the City's discriminatory and un lawful

5 policies and practices. Secondarily, this action seeks statutory minimum damages for the class,

6 and additional damages for the named plaintiffs.

7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8

5. Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 360 1, et seq., and

9 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

10 and 1343. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 220 1 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the

II rights of the parties and to grant all further relief deemed necessary and proper.

12

6. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over claims

13 under the California Constitution, California Fair Employment & Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code

14 § 12940, ef seq., Cal ifornia Gov't Code § 11135, the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, and

15 common law torts.

16

7. Venue li es in United States District Court for the Northern District of Cal ifom ia

17 pursuant to 28 U.s.C. §§ 84 and 1391 because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to th

18 claims all eged in this complai nt arose in the County of Contra Costa and Defendant resides and

19 conducts business in th e County of Contra Costa.

20

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

21

8. The clai ms all eged herein arose in the County of Contra Costa. This action is

22 properl y ass igned to the Oakland or San Francisco Division of the United States District Court

23 for the Northern District of Ca liforn ia pursuan t to Civil Local Ru le 3-2(d).

24

PARTIES

25

9. PlaintiffSanteya Danyell Wil liams is an African-American fema le who resides in

26 the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of California.

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT C-08·230 1 BZ

-3-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 4 of 34

10. Pla intiff Mary Ruth Scott is an African-American female who resides in the City of

2 Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of California.

3

11 . Plaintiff Karen Latreece Coleman is an African-American female who resides in the

4 Ci ty of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State ofCalifomia.

5

12. Plaintiff Priscill a Bunton is an African-American fema le who resides in the City of

6 Antioch, Count y of Contra Costa, State of California.

7

13. Plaintiff Alyce Denise Payne is an African-Ameri can female who formerly resided

8 in the City of Antioch, and currentl y resides in Bay Point, both in the County of Contra Costa,

9 State ofCalifomia.

10

14. At all tim es relevant, each of the indi vidual Plaintiffs named in the paragraphs 9-13

11 was, and conti nues to be. eligible for rent subs idy benefits under the federally-funded Section 8

12 Housing Choice Voucher Program ("Heyp" or "Voucher Program") com mon ly known as

13 "Section 8," and codifi ed at 42 U.S.c. § 1437 f. Each plaintiff cun·ently receives Section 8

14 benefits.

15

15. On informati on and belief, Defendant City of Antioch ("City" or "Antioch") is a

16 municipal corporation which includes, operates, governs and is responsible for the Antioch

17 Police Department ("APD") pursuant to the laws of the State of Californi a.

18

16. Plaintiffs are informed and bel ieve that Defendant caused, and is responsible for the

19 below-described un lawfu l conduct and resu lting injuri es in that Defendant participated in the

20 unlawfu l conduct or acted jointly with others who did so; authori zed, acquiesced in or set in

21 motion actions that led to the unlawful conduct; failed 10 take action to prevent the unlawful

22 conduct; failed and refused, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights, to initiate and

23 mainta in adequate trai ning and supervision; failed to prevent furt her harm to Plaintiffs; and/or

24 ratified the unlawful co nduct and act ions by empl oyees and agents under Defendant 's' direction

25 and control , including fai lure to take remedial action.

26

27

FIRST AM ENDED COMPLAINT C-08-HOI I3Z

-4 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 5 of 34

CLASS ALLEGAnONS

2

17. Plaintiffs hring th is action pursuan t to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules ofCivii

3 Procedure on behalf of a class of all African-Ameri cans who have held, cu rrently hold, may

4 hold , or are erroneously regarded by the City and officers of the Antioch Pol ice Department as

5 holding, Section 8 housing vouchers, and all members of their households, who reside, have

6 resided or will reside, in the City Anti och. Plaint iffs are members of the class they seek to

7 represent.

8

18. The members of the cl ass are suffi cientl y numerous that joinder of all members is

9 impracticable. Plai ntiffs are in form ed and believe that the class exceeds 800 ind ividuals.

10

19. There are questions ofl aw and fact common to the class and these questi ons

II predominate over individual questions. Such questions include, among others: ( I) whether

12 Defendant' s customs, poli cies and practices discriminate against members of African-American

13 Section 8 households in the City of Antioch; (2) whether Defendant 's common customs, poli cies

14 and practices have had a disparate impact on members of African-American Section 8

15 households in the City of Antioch; (3) whether any di sparate impact is just ifi ed by necessity and,

16 if so, whether there are less discriminatory alternat ives to Defendant' s policies and practi ces; (4)

17 whether the di sparate impact constitutes a violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S .c. § 360 I, e

18 seq. ; (5) whether the di sparate impact constitutes a viol ation of Cali fornia Government Code §

19 111 35, andlor the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, Cal. Gov' t Code § 12940, et seq. ;

20 (6) whether the City of Ant ioch has engaged in customs, policies, and practi ces of disparate

21 treatment adverse to members of Afri can-A merican Section 8 households; (7) whether that

22 disparate treatment violates 42 U.S.c. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 , el seq. ,

23 Ca lifornia Constituti on articl e I, section 7, th e Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 , Cal. Gov' t Code

24 § 111 35, and the Cali fornia Fair Employment & Housing Act, GOy' t Code § 12940, el seq.; (8)

25 whether the conduct of Defendant constitutes a custom. policy, and practice of di scriminati on,

26 coercion, intimidati on, threats or interference on the basis of source of income prohibited by the

27 Cali fornia Fair Employment & Housi ng Act, Gov't Code § 12940, et seq.; (9) whether defend ant

FIRST AM ENDED COMPLA INT C-08-2301 BZ

- 5-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 6 of 34

has engaged in a custom, policy and practice of unlawful searches of class member homes in

2 vio lation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, art icl e I, section 13 of the

3 California Constitution and the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; and (to) whethcr injunctive

4 relief, other equitable remedies and statutory minimum damages are warranted for the class.

5

20. The claims all eged by Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.

6

21. The Plaintiffs wi ll fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

7

22. Class Certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because the

8 City of Antioch has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

9 making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. The

10 members of the class are entitled to injunctive relief to end Antioch's discriminatory and

II unlawfu l policies and practices targeting African-American Section 8 households. Declaratory

12 and injunct ive relief are the primary goal of this litigation. Damages relief is secondary,

13 incidental and ancillary to the declaratory and injunctive claims.

14

23. This action is also properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.

15 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any question s

16 affecting only individual class members, and a class act ion is superior to other available methods

17 for the fair and efficient adjudication of this casc. This action is also properly maintainable

18 under Rule 23(e)(4)(A) tor all class issues alleged herein.

19

THE SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM

20

24. Thc Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program ("Voucher Program") is a

21 federally-funded housin g program whose purpose includes "aiding lower-income fami li es in

22 obtaini ng a decent place to live and ... promoting econom ica ll y mixed hous ing." 42 U.S.c. §

23 I437f(a).

24

25. The Voucher Program is one of several programs authorized under 42 U.S.c. §

25 l437f and administered by local public housing authorities; in Plaintiffs' case, the Housing

26 Authority of the County of Contra Costa ("I-IACCC") administers approximately 9, I00 Housing

27 Choi ce Vouchers, including about I,582 Section 8 households in the City of Antioch.

fiRST AMENDED COMPLA INT C..()8·2301 BZ

- 6-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 7 of 34

26. Voucher Program funds are paid directly from the Department of Housing and

2 Urban Development ("HUD") to HACCC. See 42 U.S.C. § I437f(a), (0)( I)(A). In

3 administering the Voucher Program, HUD enters into annual contribution contracts with

4 HACCC, and HACCC agrees to establish local polices and administer the program. See 42

5 U.S.C. § 1437f(b)( I), (0)( I)(A); see also Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa,

6 Section 8 Administrative Plan, eh. I, Part II.C. (aI'aifable at

7 http://64. 143.89.96/AdminP laniindex.htm) [hereinafter Sectioll8 Admin Plan].

8

27. HACCC issues vouchers to eligible appl icants and enters into contracts with

9 landlords. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(0)(2)-(4); Sectioll8 Admin Plan, Ch. I, Part II.C. In its contract

10 with the landlord. HACCC agrees to make timel y monthly rental payments "to the owner on

11 behalf of the family." Section 8 Admin Plan, Ch. 13, Part H.C. Also, when the housing "subsidy

12 for a family exceeds the rent to owner, the fami ly is due a utility reimbursement. HUD pemlits

13 HACCC to pay the reimbursement to the fami ly or directly to the utility provi der." Id. Ch. 6,

14 Part III-A; 24 C.F.R. § 982.5 14(b).

15

28. The Voucher Program emphasizes the objective of"Housing Cho ice" because its

16 express legislative purpose is to penni! low- income participants to relocate to higher opportu nity

17 neighborhoods such as those found in Antioch, where better schools and/or jobs may be found ,

18 and thereby escape the deleterious social conditions which often exist in primari ly poor, lower

19 opportunity neighborhoods.

20

29. The Voucher Program requires a participant who has been awarded a housing

2 1 voucher to find a private landlord who is willing to accept the participant as a tenant. 42 U.S.C.

22 § 1437f(0)(6). Under the program, the housi ng costs of a low-income Section 8 participant are

23 subsidized such that the participant pays the land lord 30% of his or her income as rent, with the

24 difference between the p811icipant's payment and the market rent covered by the fede ral subsidy.

25 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(0)(2).

26

30. As a cond ition of receiving benefits, Voucher Program participants agree to abide

27 by a li st of "tenani ob li gations" which include, inler alia, not engaging in criminal activity which

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-2301 BZ

- 7-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 8 of 34

threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of neighbors; and not allowi ng a

2 person not named on the lease to reside on the premises without the pennission of the public

3 housing authority. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(0)(7)(D); 24 C.F.R. § 982.551(h), (I).

4

3 1. However, to avoid blaming victims for the actions of perpetrators, di sturbances

5 resulting from domestic viol ence are specificall y excluded as a pennissible reason for

6 tenninating a parti cipant's benefits or evicting the tenru,t. 42 U.S.c. § 1437f(0)(7)(C),

7 (0)(20)(A).

8

THE CITY OF ANTIOCH AND THE CO MMUNITY ACTION TEAM

9

32. In 2003, the number of households that received Section 8 Housing Choice

10 Vouchers from HACCC and chose to li ve in Antioch was 1,049. By 2007, this number had

11 grown to 1,582, approxi mately 4.37% of the tota l number of the City'S households. Although

12 three·quarters of Section 8 vo ucher participants live in the poorer northwestern side of town,

13 some have been able to rent in the more affluent and newer southeastern part of town. Because

14 of the downturn in the Antioch housing market beginning in 2006, and the inability of

15 homeowners and speculators to sell their homes, Section 8 Voucher participants were able to use

16 their benefits to rent larger homes that wo uld otherwise have been left vacant and/or lost to

17 foreclosure.

18

33. By February 2006, officials in Antioch were publicly attributing problems in the

J 9 City to an influx of Section 8 households. City Council member Jim Davis complained that

20 Section 8 pal1icipants "seem to be a magnet for problems throughout the city of Antioch....

21 want to see what recourse, as a city, we have to limit the numbers [of Section 8 households}."

22 Sarah KruPP. City Seeking New Rental Regulations, Contra Costa Times, Feb. 27, 2006, at F4.

23 At a September 2006 public hearing before the Co ntra Costa Board of Supervi sors, Mayor

24 Donald Freitas stated, " if the city of Antioch has ten percent of the county population, but has

25 sixteen percent of Section 8 housing, it is a reason for concern." Other City officials reported

26 that "neighbors ' complaints have led them to believe that renters and Section 8 recipi ents [were]

27 creatin g problems [in Antioch]." Krupp, Regulations, supra, at F4.

FIRST AMENDr:OCOMPLAINT - C·08-2JOl BZ

·8·

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 9 of 34

34. In April 2006, Councilmember Davis called for the City to create its own agency to

2 " handle comp laints about Section 8 housing." Rowena Coetsee, City Wants Say in Section 8

3 Housing, Contra Costa Times, Apr. 27,2006, at F4. Soon after, City officials, "police and code-

4 enforcement personnel decided to look more closely at the number of calls for service involving.

S .. Section 8 housing." Rowena Coetsee, City to Stlldy Low-Income HOllsing Complaints, Contra

6 Costa Times, May 3, 2006, at F4. Accordi ng to a repot1 the City issued in November 2006, Ci ty

7 leaders believe Antioch is hom c to a d isproportionate number of subsidi zed tenants and that

8 "their behav ior pattcms are di sruptive; and they bring cri me, drugs and disorder to the

9 ne ighborhood."

10

3S. Beginning in May 2006, APD attempted to obtain a list of all Section 8 properti es

II in Antioch in order to dctennine "whether Section 8 households are responsib le for a

12 disproportionate number of police calls." Coetsee, Study, Sllpra, F4. In add ition, the City's

13 "number crunching [would] enable the city to ratchet up the pressure on troublemakers." /d.

14 The APD reported that the addresses of so-call ed "repeat offenders" on Section 8 - those whose

IS residences had been the focus of multiple service calls - would be given to the Housing

16 Authori ty to prov ide "a basis for revoki ng eligibi li ty" fo r Sectio n 8 housi ng assistance. Id. APD

17 Corporal Barry Delavan explained, "We need a referral system, and that 's what we're trying to

18 work out." Id.

19

36. In May 2006, as the foreclos ure crisis was heating up, so me Antioch residents

20 "complained [to the C ity Council] ... that low-income residents receivi ng federal housing

21 assistance (were] draggin g the city down by increasing crime and causing blight." Sarah Krupp,

22 Residents Decry Sec/ion 8 Tenants. Contra Costa Times, May 10, 2006, at F4. Certain pub li c

23 officials and residents accused the Housing Authority of neglecting its duty by "failing to

24 monitor Section 8 land lords and tenants who [were] causing bli ght and crime." Sarah Krupp,

25 Housing Cllie/Says Satellite Will Help Area, Contra Costa Times, May 19, 2006, at F4. Around

26 the same time, signs appeared on the doors of a number of renters in the City, which were not

27

FIRST AMENDEDCOMl'LAINT - C·08·230 1 BZ

- 9-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 10 of 34

placed there by either the renters or their landlords, stati ng: "No More Rentals. No More Section

2 8. Save Antioch NOW. We THE RES IDENTS are watchi ng YOU."

3

37. In and about July of2006, the City and the Antioch Police Department created a

4 unit ca ll cd the "Community Action Team" ("CATn) within the police department. Although

5 ostensibly aimed at addressi ng "quality ofl ife" issues throughout Antioch, from the outset the

6 City Cou nci l created CAT, and it has been CAT's practice, to disproportionatel y focus on

7 Secti on 8 voucher participants, and particularly on those res iding in the more amuent

8 neighborhoods of Antioch, southeast of the rail road tracks.

9

38. At a Septem ber 2006 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors meeting, Council

10 members accused the HACCC of not moving quick enough to root out problem tenants who

I I diminish the area's quality oflifc. At the meeting, Mayor Freitas requested "more en forcement"

12 of Section 8 regulations by HACCC. Councilman Jim Con ley added, "We care about vio lations.

13 ... The city of Antioch is goi ng to be on thi s issue like a pit bull - we're not goi ng to let this

14 one go."

J 5

39. Whi le the cond uct of APD and CAT are focused on Section 8 households in the

16 City of Ant ioch, the City and APD have specifi call y targeted African-Americans they believe

17 hold Section 8 vo uchers. Defend ant perceives that th e Section 8 tenants who are "probl em

18 tenants" are primaril y Afri can-American holders of Section 8 vo uchers. This perception and

19 targeting has been confirmed by repeated statements by the elected representatives of the City,

20 its po lice Chi ef and members of the APD, often by contrast ing Antioch with the City of

2 1 Richmond, which has a substantial Afri can-American populat ion. Thus. for example, at a

22 December 2007 City Counci l meeting. Councilman Bri an Kalinowski justified CAT's actions by

23 wall1in g that " un less we want to be a communi ty, like the City of Richmond, that is faced with

24 42 homicides so far this year in their commun ity, if we want to be like that commu nity, then all

25 we have to do is not take action." Councilman Arne Si monsen reiterated, at the same meeti ng,

26 that the City Council would not stand by and let Ant ioch "go to hell" like Ri chmond. Plainti ffs

27 are infonned and believe that the goal of the City is to force African-American Section 8

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT C.Q8-2301 BZ

- 10-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 11 of 34

households to move out of Ant ioch, and to discourage any new Section 8 households from

2 locating there.

3

40. On information and beliet~ James Hyde is the Chief of Police for the City of

4 Antioch. In this capacity, he is responsible for the admin istration of APD and the training and

5 supervision of its officers, and for the comp li ance of APD officers with the Constitution of the

6 United States, the Cal iforni a Constitution, and appl icable law.

7

41. On information and belief, Sergeant Mitchell Schwitters, Officer Desmond Bittner,

8 and Officer William Dill ard are and at all tim es material to this complaint were employees of

9 Defendant City and the APD.

10

42. Each officer named in paragraphs 40 and 41 is, and at all tim es material to this

II complaint was, duly employed, appointed and acting, as a sworn peace officer of APD, under

12 color of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and

13 usages of the State of California andlor the C ity of Antioch.

14

43. On information and belief, Defendant City, APD and Police Chief Hyde are, and at

15 all times material to this complaint were, responsible for the employmcnt, training, supervision,

16 and discipline of officers Schwittcrs, Bittner, and Di llard.

17

44. On infonnation and belief, at all times material to this Complaint , Officers

18 Schwitters, Bittner and Dillard were assigned to the APD Community Action Team ("CAT"). At

19 all times material to this complaint, these offi cers acted within the scope of their employment

20 with Defendant City and APD.

21

DEFENDANT'S CUSTOM, POLICIES AND PRACTICES

22

45. In establishing CAT to in vestigate com pl aints of disturbance and nui sance

23 occurring in reside ntial units, Defendant C ity of Antioch intended and knew, and intends and

24 continues to know, that a primary focus of CAT wou ld and will continue to be households

25 participating in the Section 8 Housi ng Choice Voucher Program, and that one of CAT's principal

26 activities would and will continue to be gatherin g evidence that Section 8 Housing Choice

27 Voucher participants alleged ly were and are violat ing the obligations owed by participants to

FIRST AMENDEDCOM I'LAINT C..(}S-2301 BZ

- II -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 12 of 34

HAcec as conditions of receiving these benefits. Thus, while rental housing makes up only

2 25% of Antioch househo lds, 85% of CAT investigations involve rental housing. Moreover,

3 although voucher participants make up only 5% of Antioch households (one-fifth of all rental

4 housing), two-thirds of CAT invest igations involve homes wherc voucher participants reside.

S

46. The brunt orCAT investigations falls disproportionately on African-Americans.

6 African-Americans constitute only about 14% of Antioch households yet they are subject to

7 approximately two-thirds ora ll CAT investigations. Furthermore, while African-Americans

8 constitute 56% of Antioch Sect ion 8 households, 70% of all CAT referrals to HACCC involve

9 African-American families.

10

47. On receiving a complaint reporting a disturbance or nuisance in a residential

11 neighborhood, including domestic violence related incidents, APD and CAT havc made and

12 continue to make special efforts to detennine if a household member involved in the incident is a

13 participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. If so, the complaint of

14 disturbance or nuisance is forwarded by Defendant to HACee, often with the suggestion that the

15 participant be tenninated from the Voucher Program for violat ing his or her tenant obligations

16 imposed on participants by 24 C.F.R. § 982.551.

17

48. Data from 2007 shows that the HACCC decl ined to tenninate more than 60% of the

18 time that CAT referred a Section 8 household for tenninat ion. FUl1hermore, the rate of

19 "unfounded referrals" by CAT to HACee in 2006 and 2007 was significantly hi gher for

20 Voucher Program participants identified as African-American. According to HACCC data, 7 1.8

2 J percent of unfounded referrals by CAT invo lved African-American participants, and only 17.9

22 percent involved White participants.

23

49. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that APD and CAT also target African-

24 Americans whom they erroneously beli eve receive Section 8 housing assistance. Defendant had

25 and continues to have a policy, pattern and practice of asking African-Ameri cans under

26 investigation whether they own or rent their home and whether they are Section 8 voucher

27 participants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-O&-2301 BZ

- 12 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 13 of 34

50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, in addition to CAT offi cers, other Ant ioch

2 police officers have been involved in conducting investigations and searches of Section 8

3 households and those suspected of being Section 8 households. These non-CAT officers refer

4 suspected Section 8 voucher participants to CAT for furthe r investigation. On information and

5 beliet: Plaintiffs allege that African-American Section 8 households are disproportionately

6 subject to these investigations.

7

51. Defendant had and continues to have a policy, pattern and practice of secking to

8 search and searching the homes rented by Afri can-American Section 8 voucher participants 01'

9 those erroneously believed by Defendant to be Section 8 voucher participants. Such searches

10 have been and are unreasonable and unlawful, in that they have been done without lawful

II authority andlor have exceeded the scope of any lawful authority. Plaintiffs are informed and

12 believe that African-American Section 8 households are disproportionately subject to this

13 conduct.

14

52. To conduct these searches, Defendant, through APD and CAT, had, and continues

15 to have, a policy, pattern and practice of rel ying on the alleged parolee or probationer status of a

16 person having a relationship to the Section 8 voucher participant to establish a purported basis to

17 search that Section 8 household if the participant does not actually consent to the search.

18 Plainti Ffs arc informed and beli eve that Afri can-American Section 8 households are

19 di sproportionately subject to this conduct.

20

53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, through APD and CAT, had, an

21 continues to have, a policy, pattern and practice of informing neighbors of African-American

22 Section 8 households that the household is receiving Section 8 housing ass istances and soliciting

23 and encouraging nuisance, disturbance and other criminal activity calls about the Section 8

24 household.

25

54. In investigating Afi"ican·American Section 8 households, Defendant had, and

26 continues to have, a policy, pattern and practice of compi ling records of disturbance calls to the

27 Section 8 households, and forwarding these compilations to HACCC purportedly as evidence of

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-230 1 BZ

- 13 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 14 of 34

violent criminal activity, or criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful

2 enjoyment of other residents or neighbors and which violate obligations owed by the Voucher

3 participant to HACCC. Defendant engaged in this practice with little investigation as to whether

4 the Voucher participant was the perpetrator or responsible party for the disturbance, even in

5 incidents involving domestic violence perpetrated on the Voucher participant herself, and with

6 little investigation as to whether the calls have merit. On infomlation and belief, Plaintiffs allege

7 that African-American Secti on 8 households are disproportionately subject to this conduct.

8

55. Defendant had and continues to have a policy, pattern and practice of sendi ng

9 letters or otherw ise communicating to landlords of Section 8 tenants stating that their tenant had

10 engaged in criminal and/or nuisance activity, and advising the landlord that she or he could be

II held criminally or civilly responsible. Defendant's policy and practice is to follow up these

12 letters with frequent calls or visits to landlords. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that these

13 communications were and are disproportionately made to land lords of African-American

14 Voucher participants. On infonnation and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant encourages

15 landlords to evict and refuse to rent to African-Americans.

16

56. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant City of Antioch reflects a policy, pattern

17 and practice of discrimination. harassment and coercion against African-American Section 8

18 households and African-Americans whom Defendant erroneollsly believes to be part of Section 8

19 househo lds. The conduct of Defendant has a disproportionate adverse impact upon African-

20 Americans in Antioch that is not justified by necessity. Even ifjustified, there are less

21 discriminatory altematives to the measures taken by Defendant.

22

57. As a matter of custom, policy and practice, APD inadequately and improperly

23 supervises and trains its police officers, including the officers identified herein, thereby failing to

24 adequately discourage constitutional and statutory vio lat ions on the part of its officers. As a

25 matter of custom, policy and practice, the City and APD authorize and/or rat ify the unlawfu l and

26 discriminatory conduct and behavior of Ant ioch police officers especiall y when such unlawfu l

27 and discriminatory conduct and behavior is directed at African-American citizens.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-230 1 BZ

- 14-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 15 of 34

58. The customs, policies and practices described above were, and conti nue to be,

2 carried out by Defendant under color of state, local, or municipal law.

3

CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS

4

59. Plai ntiffSanteya Danyell Williams lives in Antioch with her children, and is a

5 participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. After receiving the voucher, Ms.

6 Wil liams decided to move out of Oak land to Contra Costa County. Ms. Wi lli ams settled in

7 Antioch because ofbctter educational opportunities at its schools.

8

60. In January 2007, Antioch po lice officers vis ited Plaintiff's home, respo nding to

9 Plaintiff's request for assistance to stop a threat of domestic violence against Plaintiff Williams

10 from o ne Mr. Bati este. Plaintiff Williams suffered fro m an incident of domest ic violence, and

II her o ldest son called APD to assist his mother. According to an APD Incident Report dated

12 January 24, 2007, on January 21, 2007 at II :39 a.m., officers arrived at Ms. Williams' residence

13 in response to an incident of domestic violence in which she was the victim.

14

61. APD record s show that after officers learned Ms. Williams was a participant in the

15 Voucher Program, their focus turned toward fi nding grounds to tenninate her housing benefits.

16 According to the same APD Incident Report, notes on January 22, 2007 state:

17

ABOVE RESIDENCE IS ON SECT ION 8 ASS ISTANCE. PATROL WAS

RECENTLY ATTHE RESIDENCE FOR A DOM V AND DISCOVERED

18

THAT THE RESPONSIBLE WAS AN UNAUTHOR IZED RESID ENT OF

19

T HE HOME.

20

62. On infonnatiol1 and belief, on or about January 22, 2007, CAT officers came to Ms.

21 Williams' home to ask whether Mr. Batieste had returned to the residence. When Ms. Williams 22 invited them into her home to talk, the officers proceeded to search her home without her 23 consent. While the purported purpose of the search was to locate Mr. Batieste, the APD officers
24 searched the entire home, including the closets and drawers, for evidence that Mr. Batieste was 25 living at Ms. Williams' residence.

26

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C..(I8-2301I3Z

- 15-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 16 of 34

63. On or about March 28, 2007, CAT Officer Mitchell Schwitters (Badge No. 2008)

2 sent a letter in the name of Antioch Police Chief James Hyde directed to Ms. Williams' landlord,

3 advising him that:

4

While investigating complaints about the family at this address, [officers]

discovered that prob lems were being caused by an adult male living in the house.

5

This male is most likely not on the lease. We also discovered that Ihe family

living in your property has two pit bull dogs that have been causing a nuisance to

6

the surrounding neighborhood.

7 The letter warned that the landlord could be "held responsible for criminal or nuisance related
8 activity" on his property; asked for "immediate compliance regarding the listed issues [to] avoid
9 criminal abatement and or civi l litigation"; and warned that "should [the landlord] fail to take
10 reasonab le steps to prevent any future unlawful use of this property {the landlord] will not be
II considered an ' innocent owner' in any future action .....
12 64. On information and belief, APD also conveyed these accusations to HACCC as
13 purported violat io ns of the obligatio ns owed by Plaintiff to HACCC in January 2007. HACCC
14 thereafter issued a notice propos ing to terminate Ms. W illi ams' voucher benefits for violating the
15 prohibition on unauthorized household residents and/or criminal activity that threatens the health
16 safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of other residents or neighbors. Plaintiff requested a
17 hearing at which Officer Desmond Bittner (BHdge No. 3252) testified. In a decision dated April
18 30,2007, HACCC's hearing officer issued a decision finding these allegations to be
19 unsupported, and refused to sustain the proposed tennination.
20 65. As a resident of Antioch, PlaintifTWilliams and her household continue to be
21 subjected to the policies and practices of the City and APD. Moreover, APD's practices cause
22
Ms. Williams to fear contacting APD for any purpose and avoid inviting individuals to her home

23 because she might be subj ected to further APD interference.
24
CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MARY RUTH SCOTT 25
66. Plaintiff Mary Ruth Scott lives with her chi ldren in Antioch and is a participant in
26
the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Scott lived in Antioch as a child, and 27

f i RST AMENDED COMPLAINT C·08·2301 BZ

16 M

M

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 17 of 34

moved back to the city because she believed Antioch provided a good environment to raise her

2 children, with good schools and open spaces.

3

67. On January 11 ,2007, according to an APD report in Case Number 07000534, CAT

4 officers began an investigation of Ms. Scott's home "due to constant domestic disputes at the

5 location." The APD report, wh ich is dated January 17,2007, also explained the CAT officers

6 "investigate[] homes that are causing neighborhood disturbances."

7

68. On or about January J6,2007, CAT officers, including Officers Schwitters, Bittner,

8 and Wi ll iam Di llard (Badge No. 3978), forc ibly entered the home of Ms. Scott. The officers

9 wro ngfu ll y claimed authorization to search Ms. Scott's house based on an arrest warrant for

10 Tyrone Young, who was visi ting her home. The warrant , however, did not list Ms. Scott's

I I address and therefore was not within the scope of the warrant. Plaintiff Scott told the officers not

12 to enter her house, but they represented to her that thei r warrant allowed them to enter her house.

13 When Ms. Scott asked the CAT Officers to see a copy orthe warrant they refused to show it to

14 her. The officers searched Ms. Scott's entire house and garage, including cupboards and

15 bedroom drawers. At the time, Ms. Scott was pregnant and at home with her one year-old

16 daughter.

17

69. Officer Bittner sent a letter in the name of Antioch Poli ce Chi ef Hyde di rected to

18 HACCC on or about Jan uary 18,2007 to report all eged violations of Pl aintiffs obli gations as a

19 participant in the Section 8 Housi ng Choice Voucher Program. The January 18 letter stated CAT

20 "received a complaint from an APD patrol officer, who advised us that there had been numerous

21 domestic disputes at [Ms.] Scott's residence. The offi cer also advised that the resid ence is

22 possi bly on Section eight assistance and that an unauthorized male named Tyrone Young was

23 living at the location." The letter all eged that Mr. Young's pr(.'Sence at the home constituted a

24 violation of Ms. Scott's Section 8 Voucher Program Family Obligations. On inform ation and

25 bel ief, Office Bittner issued the January 18,2007 letter wi th the intent of inducing HACCC to

26 tenn inate Ms. Scott's Section 8 voucher benefits.

27

f iRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-2301 BZ

- 17-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 18 of 34

70. On and about March 28, 2007, Officer Schwitlers sent a letter in the name of

2 Antioch Po lice Chief Hyde directed to Ms. Scott's landlord, adv ising him that APD had "arreste

3 an adult male who we found to be Jiving in the horne [and who] is most likely not on the lease."

4 The letter warned that the landlord could be "held responsible for crimi nal or nui sance related

5 activity" on his property; asked for "immediate compliance regarding the listed issues [to] avoid

6 criminal abatement and or civi l litigation"; and warned that "should [the landlord) fail to take

7 reasonable steps to prevent any future unlawful use of this property [the landlord] will not be

8 considered an 'innocent owner' in any future action."

9

71. Plaintiffs are informed and bel ieve that from January or February 2007 to October

10 2007, CAT officers called Ms. Scott's landlord on an almost weekly basis to ask if the land lord

1I had evicted Ms. Scott and why she had not yet been evicted. The officers continued to warn Ms.

12 Scott's landlord that he could be held responsible for the alleged criminal or nuisance related

13 activity at Ms. Scott's home. The land lord was also told by an Antioch police officer to be

14 careful about renting to African-American tenants.

15

72. HACCC thereafter terminated Ms. Scott's Section 8 Vo ucher. Plaintiff sought

16 j udicial review of the termin at ion decision. Before the court could complete its review, HACCC

17 rescind ed its tennination decision. Ms. Scott continues to live in Antioch and continues to

18 receive housi ng benefits under the Sectio n 8 Voucher Program.

19

73. As a resident of Antioch, Pl ai ntiff Scott and her household cont inue to be subj ected

20 to po li cies and practices of the City and APD. Moreover, APD's practices cause Ms. Scott to

2 1 fear contacti ng APD for any purpose and avoid in viting individuals to her home because she

22 might be subjected to further APD interference.

23

CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF KAREN LATREECE COLEMAN

24

74. Plaintiff Karen Latreece Coleman lives in Antioch with her chil dren and is a

25 participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Coleman moved from

26 Pittsburg to Antioch in 2003 in order to li ve in the same city as her three sisters, one ofwhorn

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-2JOI BZ

- 18 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 19 of 34

recently died of breast cancer. Ms. Coleman also believed Antioch would be a peaceful place for

2 her family to live.

3

75. In June 2007, APD officers, including CAT officer Bittner, came to Plaintiff's

4 home in the earl y morn ing, cla im ing to have authorization to search Plai nt iff's home look ing for

5 Thomas Coleman, Plaintiff's husband. The officers purportedly based their authority to search

6 Plaintiff's home on Mr. Coleman's status as a paro lee. On information and belief, Mr.

7 Coleman's parole officer denied authorization for a parole search and gave APD officers

8 authori zati on for only a compli ance check of Mr. Coleman . Although Plaintiff objected to the

9 search, the officers persisted, damaged the front door, searched the home, took photographs, and

10 told Plaintiff th at she woul d lose her Secti on 8 benefits. Officers handcuffed Mrs. Coleman

II during the search and threatened to handcuff her child ifhe call ed the police station to speak to

12 their supervisor.

13

76. Officer Schw itters sent a letter in the name of Antioch Police Chi ef James Hyde

14 directed to HACCC on or about J une 27,2007 to report all eged violations of Plaint iff's

15 obli gat ions as a participant in the Section 8 Housi ng Choice Voucher Program. The Junc 27

16 letter all eged that Mr. Coleman's presence at the home constituted a violation of Mrs. Coleman's

17 Section 8 Voucher Program Famil y Obligations. On infonnation and belief, Office Schwitters

18 issued the March 2 1, 2007 letter with the intent of inducing HACCC to terminate Mrs.

19 Coleman' s Secti on 8 voucher benefits.

20

77. Pl aintiff had previously requested that HACCC add Mr. Coleman to her lease, and

2 1 penn iss ion was granted on June 29, 2007. Mr. Coleman now li ves with Pl ainti ff.

22

78. On info ml at ion and belief, CAT officers attempted to conduct another search of

23 Mrs. Co leman's residence on or about July 3, 2007. The officers again purportedly based their

24 authority to search Plai ntiff's home on Mr. Coleman's status as a parol ee. Mrs. Coleman agai n

25 objected to th e search, and this time the offi cers did not conduct a search.

26

79. On infonn ati on and belief, CAT officers returned a third time to Mrs. Coleman's

27 home on and about July 2007 looki ng for Mr. Coleman. Mrs. Coleman again refused to consent

FIRST AMEN DED COMPLA INT C-08-2JOI Bl

- 19 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 20 of 34

to a search. CAT officers proceeded to handcuff Mrs. Coleman and put her in the back of their

2 police car for approximately half·an-hour. Mrs. Coleman' s sister arrived at the residence and,

3 although it is not her home, she let the officers into Mrs. Coleman's horne. The officers then

4 searched the home. After completing their search of the residence, the officers released Mrs.

5 Co leman.

6

80. On or about July 3. 2007, CAT Officers Bittner and Schwitters visited Mr.

7 Coleman's place of employment and questioned him about residing with his wife. Although Mr.

8 Coleman to ld the officers that he now was on the [ease with his wife, they threatened him with

9 arrest ifhe was found at Plaintiff's home. The CAT officers also asked to see Mr. Coleman's

10 employment records but were turned down by his cmployer. APD officers made several such

II visits to Mr. Coleman's place of employment.

12

81. On infonnation and belief, CAT officers contacted Mrs. Coleman 's landlord as pat1

13 of their efforts to force her and her husband out of their Antioch home.

14

82. As a resident of Antioch, Plaintiff Coleman and her household continue to be

15 subjected to the policies and practices of the City and APD. Moreover, APD's practices cause

16 Mrs. Coleman to fear con tacting APD for any purpose and avoid inviting individuals to her hom

17 because she might be subjected to further APD interference.

18

CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF PRISCILLA BUNTON

19

83. PlaintitTPriscilla Bunton li ves with her children in Antioch and is a participant in

20 the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Bunton moved to Antioch to be closer to

2 1 her mother who has lived in Ant ioch for several years. Ms. Bunton also believed that Antioch

22 provided better living co nd itions for her children.

23

84. On or about September 25,2006, according to an APD report in Case Number 06-

24 009645, CAT officers Bittner and Dillard approached Ms. Bunton's residence to discuss noise

25 complaints about her household made by her neighbors. They encountered Ms. Bunton's

26 boyfriend. Keith Carter, in the driveway of her home and discovered there was a warrant for his

27 arrest. The officers arrested Mr. Carter.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C·08· 2301 BZ

- 20-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 21 of 34

85. The officers then approached Ms. Bunton and asked to enter the home to allow

2 them to search for Mr. Cm1er's identification. Ms. Bunton refused to consent to the search

3 without a warrant. The officers misrepresented that they were authorized to search Ms. Bunton's

4 home based on Mr. Carter's parolee status. The CAT officers searched the entire home,

5 including drawers, and al legedly discovered men's clothing in a closet and other men's personal

6 items in a bedroom.

7

86. Officer Bittner sent a letter in the name of Antioch Po lice Chief Hyde directed to

8 I-IACCC on or about September 26, 2006, to report alleged violations of Plaintiff's obligations as

9 a participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The letter alleged that Mr.

10 Carter was an unauthorized resident of Ms. Bunton's home, and that Ms. Bunton's neighbors

II complained about loud music from her residence and juveniles playing basketball late at night in

12 the backyard.

13

87. On infonnation and beli ef, Office Bittner issued the September 26 letter with the

14 intent of inducing HA CCC to terminate Ms. Bunton's Section 8 voucher benefits. HACCC

15 issued a notice proposing to tenninate Plaintiff Bunton's voucher benefits on March 22, 2007.

16 Ms. Bunton requested a hearing at which Officer Bittner testified. HACCC tenninated her

17 benefits based on information that Mr. Carter allegedly was an unauthorized resident of Ms.

18 Bunton 's household. Ms. Bunton sought judicial review of the tennination decision. The

19 Martinez Superior Court set aside the decision and remanded the proceeding to HACCC because

20 the hearing officer's findings of fa ct were not supported by evidence in the record and he had not

2 1 considered evidence submitted by Ms. Bunton. On remand. HACCC rescinded its tennination

22 decision.

23

88. Ms. Bunton continues to live in Antioch and continues to receive housing benefits

24 under the Section 8 Voucher Program.

25

89. As a resident of Antioch, Plaintiff Bunton and her household continue to be

26 subjected to the policies and practices of the City and APD. Moreover, APD's practices cause

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-HOI BZ

- 21 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 22 of 34

Ms. Bunton to fear contacting APD for any purpose and avoid inviting individuals to her home

2 because she might be subjected to further APD interference.

3

CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ALYCE DENISE PA YNE

4

90. Plaintiff Alyce Denise Payne lived in Antioch with her chi ldren until her landlord

5 tenninated her tenancy at the behest of APD and CAT. Plaintiff was then , and currently is, a

6 participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Payne moved to Antioch to

7 better the life of her family and show her family that they could "make it" outside of Oakland.

8

91. In January 2007, APD officers visited Pla intiffs home in Antioch, responding to

9 Plaintiffs request for assistance to stop threats of domestic viol ence agai nst Ms. Payne by

10 Edward Shivers. In the previous two years, Ms. Payne had requested police assistance on a

11 number of occasions to stop domestic violence perpetrated by Shivers.

12

92 . On or about March 21, 2007, CAT Officer Dillard contacted HACCC to report

13 alleged violations of Plaintiff's obligati ons as a participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice

14 Voucher Program. The March 21 letter states: "the constant need for police presence and

15 nuisance to the immediate vicinity of the premises constitutes a violation of ... [the Section 8

16 Voucher Program's] Family Ob ligations Fonn ...." The letter also recited Ms. Payne's alleged

17 criminal record, and that of her children and Mr. Shivers. This recitation included incidents that

18 did not occur at Ms. Payne's home or have any relat ion to her eligibility for Section 8 voucher

19 benefits. Furthennore, some infonnation in the letter related to a juveni le, which was

20 confidential under Calif. Welf. & lnst. Code § 827.

21

93. On infonnation and belief, APD issued the March 21 , 2007 letter with the intent of

22 inducing HACCC to term inate Ms. Payne's Section 8 voucher benefits. HACCC thereafter

23 issued a notice proposi ng to tenn inate PlaintifPs voucher benefits fo r violating the prohibition

24 against drugMrelated criminal activity, or violent criminal activity, or other criminal activity that

25 threatens the hea lth, safety, or right to peaceful enj oyment of other res idents or neighbors. After

26 Plaintiff secured lega l representation, HACCC withdrew its tennination noti ce.

27

FIRST AMENDEDCOMI'LAINT C-O&·2JOI BZ

- 22-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 23 of 34

94. On or about March 28, 2007, CAT ofticer Schwitters sent a letter in the name of

2 Antioch Police Chief Hyde directed to Ms. Payne's landlord, advising him that

3

[t]he current residents of your home have been involved in criminal activity and

have recent arrests by APD. Si nce they have resided in your home, APD has

4

responded to the residence on (2) separate disturbance calls. At their previous

residence ... APD responded to the location approximately (29) times primarily

5

for disturbance related incidents.

6 The letter warned that the landlord could be "held responsible tor criminal or nuisance related

7 activity" on his property, asked for "i mmediate compliance regarding the li sted issues [to] avoid

8 crimi nal abatement and or civil litigation", and warned that "should [the landlord] fai l to take

9 reasonable steps to prevent any future unlawful use of this property [the landlord] will not be

10 considered an 'i nnocent owner' in any future act ion."
II 95. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on or about March 20, 2007, an APD officer

12 telephoned Ms. Payne's landlord and advised him about the allegations and facts described in
13 paragraphs 9 1-92. and 94.

14
96. When the March 28, 2007 letter did not lead Plaintiff's landlord to ev ict Ms. Payne,

15 CAT officers fo ll owed up with a second letter dated October 4, 2007. The October 4 letter

16 referenced the March 28 letter and March 20 call, and alleged that APD officers had responded

17 to additional calls about the residence. The October 4 letter advised the landlord that his
18 propclty mi ght constitute a public nuisance under CaL Penal Code § 370 and of hi s respons ibilit

19 that his property not create a public nuisance to the neighboring community and the City of
20
Antioch.

21 97. In and about December 2007, Plaintiff's landlord, citing both APD letters, advised
22
Ms. Payne that her lease would not be renewed and her fami ly must move. Pla intiff thereafter

23
vacated her home and, after unsuccessfully seeki ng housing in Antioch, moved to nearby Bay
24
Point, California, where she continues to receive rent subsidies for her new hom e from the

25 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
26

27

FIRST AMENDED COM PLA INT c-os-no l BZ

- 23 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 24 of 34

98. Since mov ing to Bay Point, HACCC has detennined that Ms. Payne qualities for a

2 larger home with more bedrooms. Therefore, Ms. Payne will be required to move to a larger

3 home. While fearful of the policies and practices of the City and APD that ta rget African

4 Americans, Ms. Payne has and will conti nue to seek housing in Antioch because her grandson, 01

5 whom she has full custody, is in a daycare program there.

6

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS

7

99. Plaintiffs Wi lliams, Scott, Coleman, and Payne timely served not ices of claims for

8 money damages against the City of Antioch fo r the aforement ioned conduct pursuant to

9 California Government Code §§ 910-996.6, wh ich claims were rejected. Each not ice alleged tha

10 the conduct was part of an illegal policy and practice of discriminatory targeting of Afri can-

11 Ameri cans who participate in the Section 8 Voucher Program in Antioch. All damage claims

12 made in this action are incidental to and secondary to the injunctive relief clai ms.

13

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

42 U.S.c. § 3617 (Violation of Fair Housing Act)

15

(On behalf of Individual Pla intiffs and C lass Against Defendant)

16

100. Plai ntiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

17

101. Each named Indi vidual Plaint iff is an African-A merican and thus a member ofa

18 class protected by the Fair HOLisi ng Act, 42 U.S.C. § 360 I, el seq.

19

102. In searching or attempting to search the homes of Plaintiffs Willi ams, Scott,

20 Coleman and Bunton for evidence that the participant had violated obli gations owed by the

2 1 participant to HACCC, police officers of Defendant City coerced, intimidated, threatened , or

22 interfered with each Plaintiff's exercise or enjoymen t of renting her home in violat ion of 42

23 U.S.c. § 36 17.

24

103. In notifying HACCC of domestic violence incid ents, alleged criminal acti vity and

25 violations of Section 8 Housi ng Choi ce Voucher Program obli gat ions involvi ng Plaintiffs,

26 Defendant coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with each Plaintiff's exercise or

27 enjoyment of renting her home in vio lation of 42 U.S.c. § 36 17.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ~ C'()8- 2301 BZ

- 24 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 25 of 34

104. In notifying the landlords of Plaintiffs that their tenants were involved in criminal,

2 nuisance, and/or other disturbances in and about the premises rented by each Plaintiff, Defendant

3 coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with each Plaintiff's ex.ercise or enjoyment of

4 renting her home in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 36 17.

5

105. The actions described in the paragraphs above constitute coercion, intimidation,

6 threats, or interference by Defendant in the exercise or enjoyment by class members of renting

7 their homes, in violation of 42 U.S.c. § 3617. The aforementioned conduct is pm1 of a policy,

8 pattern and practice of coercion, intimidation, threats and interference with Plaintiffs' and Class

9 Members' enjoyment of their fair housing rights, including the right to live in the community of

10 their choice free of discrimination on the basis of race. This policy, pattern and practice is the

II result of intentional discrimi nation by Defendant. In addition, Defendant's policy, pattern and

12 practice of focusing on Section 8 tenants has had and continues to have an adverse impact upon

13 African-Americans that is not justified by necessity.

14

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Denial of Equal Protection)

16

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and Class Against Defendant)

17

J 06. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

J 8

107. The foregoi ng cond uct of Defendant denied Pla intiffs and the class they represent

19 equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

20 United States.

21

108. At all times relevant, APD and CAT officers, including Officers Schwitters, Bittner,

22 and Dillard, were on-duty po lice officers acting under color of state law in their official

23 capacities, and under the supervision of Antioch Po lice Chief Hyde.

24

109. The above described actions evidence a custom, policy or pract ice of Defendant

25 City of Ant ioch and its Police Department of intentionally discrim inating on the basis offace and

26 of denying African-American Section 8 vo ucher participants, and those erroneously believed to

27 be Section 8 voucher participants, equal protection on the basis of their race.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-03-2301 BZ

- 25-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 26 of 34

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Violation of Fourth Amendment)

3

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and Class Against Defendant)

4

11 0. Plai ntiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

5

II L By entering and proceed ing to search the dwellings of Plaintiffs Williams, Scott,

6 Coleman and Bunton, without their consent and without a warrant, Defendant, through the

7 actions of APD and CAT officers, conducted unreasonable searches and seiz ures in violation of

8 the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

9

I 12. The above described actions evidence a custom, policy and practice of Defendant

10 City of A ntioch and its Police Department of conducting unlawful searches of households of

II Plai ntiffs and the class they represent in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States

12 Consitut ion.

13

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

Cal. Const. art. I, § 7 (Denial of Equal Protection)

15

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and Class Against Defendant)

16

113. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

17

114. The foregoing conduct of Defendant denied Plai ntiffs and the class they represent

18 equal p rotection of the law in vio lation o f California Co nstitution article I, section 7.

19

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

California Gov't Code § 11 135 and Its Implementing Regulations

21

(On Behalf of Individual Pla intiffs and Class Aga inst Defendant)

22

115. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

23

116. Californ ia Government Code § 11135 provides, in relevant part: "No person in the

24 State of Cali fomi a shall , on the basis of race .,. be unlawfully denied fu ll and equa l access to the

25 benefits of, or be unlawfull y subjected to discrimination under, any program or act ivity that is

26

27

FI RST AMEN DED COMPLAINT C·08·2301 I3Z

- 26-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 27 of 34

conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by

2 the slate, or receives any financial assistance from the state."

3

117. California Code of Regulations §§ 9810 I(i)(I) and (2) prohibit recipients of state

4 funding from utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of

5 discriminating against protected b'TOUPS.

6

118. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendant, its police department and CAT

7 are programs that receive financial assistance from the State of Califomi a, thus subjecting them

8 to the prohibitions of Government Code § 11135 and its im plcment ing regulations.

9

119. Defendant's activities have subjected Plaintiffs and the Class they represent to

10 discrimination on the basis of race, and that the adverse effect of those activities, fall

II disproportionately on AfricanMAmericans, and therefore have had, and will continue to have, the

12 effect of discriminating against Plaintiffs and Class members on the basis of race.

13

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

California Gov't Code § 12940, et self. (Violation of California Fair Employment &

15

1·lousing Act)

16

(On behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and Class Against Defendant)

17

120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

18

121. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are protected by the provisions oflhe Fair

19 Employment & Housing Act, Gov't Code § 12940, et seq., because they are African-Ameri cans

20 and because they have, or arc believed to have, a lawful, verifi ab le source of income (Section 8

21 Housing Assistan ce), paid directly to a representative of the tenant (HACCC).

22

122. The foregoing conduct of Defendant constitutes discrimination, coercion,

23 intimid ation, threats and interference on the basis of race and source of income, or perceived rae

24 and source of income, against Plaintiffs and the class they represent. This conduct constitutes a

25 policy, pattern and practice of intentional discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment &

26 Housing Act. This conduct also has a discriminatory impact on Plaintiffs and the class they

27 represent and is not necessary to achieve an important purpose sufficiently compelling to

FIRST AMENDEDCOMPLAINT - C-08-2301IJZ

- 27 M

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 28 of 34

ovenid e the discriminatory effect or to effectively carry out the purpose it is all eged to serve_

2 Even if the aforementioned conduct were necessary. there are feasible alternat ives that would 3 equally well or better accompli sh the purpose advanced with a less discriminatory effect.

4

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5

Ca l. Const. art. I, § 13

6

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and C lass Against Defendant)

7

123. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the all egations set fOl1h in the paragraphs above.

8

124. By entering and proceeding to search the dwellings of Plaintiffs Williams, Scott,

9 Coleman and Bunton, without their consent and without a warrant, Defendant, through the 10 act io ns of APD and CAT otlicers, conducted unreasonable seizures and searches in violation of

II the California Const itution article I, section 13.

12

125. The above described actions evidence a custom, poli cy and practice of Defendant

13 C ity of Antioch and its Police Department of conducting unl awful searches of households of

14 Plainti ffs and the class they represent in violation of the California Constitution article I, section 15 13.

16

EIGHTH CLA IM FOR RELIEF

17

California Civil Code § 52.1 (Violation of the Bane Act)

18

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and Class Against Defendant)

19

126. Plainti ffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

20

127. The conduct alleged herein violates the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 ("Bane

2 1 Act").

22

128. T he Bane Act protects individuals in the exercise or enjoyment of ri ghts secured by

23 Uthe Constitution or laws of the Uni ted States, or ofl he rights secured by the Constitution or law 24 of(Califomia)" from actual or attempted interference "by threats, intimidation or coercion" by

25 persons, whether or not act ing under color of law.

26

129. Defendant, through the actions of APD and CAT officers, has violated the rights of

27 the individual Plaintiffs and class members protected by federal and state law.

FIRST AM ENDED COMI'LA INT C-08-2301 IlZ

- 28-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 29 of 34

130. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs Williams, Scott,

2 Coleman, Bunton and Payne have suffe red actual damages, including emotional distress, in an

3 amount according to proof, and said damages may be trebled. The class Plaintiffs represent also

4 has suffered actual damages. Each class member is entitled to min imum damages of $4,000 for

5 each offense, pursuant to Californian Civil Code § 52(a).

6

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

8

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendant)

9

131. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

10

132. Defendant's conduct directed at Plaint iffs Willi ams, Scott, Coleman, Bunton and

II Payne was outrageous. That conduct was intended to cause inj ury or was undertaken in reckless

12 disregard of the probabi lity of causing injury to Plaintiffs, and did, in fact, cause Plaintiffs

13 serious em otional distress.

14

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

Negligent Infli ction of Emotional Distress

16

(On Behalf of Individu al Plaintiffs Against Defenda nt)

17

133. Pl aintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the paragraphs above.

18

134. At all relevant times, Defend ant owed Plaint iffs the duty to act with reasonabl e care

19 and not cause personal inj ury or loss or damage to the property of Plai ntiffs Will iams, Scott,

20 Coleman, Bunton and Payne or the interest in their respective properties. Defendant owed

21 individ ual Plain ti ffs the legal duty not to discrimi nate against them on the basis of their race or

22 so urce of income. Defendant owed individ ual Plai ntiffs the legal duty not to vio late their

23 co nstitutional rights. Defendants also owed individ ual Plaintiffs the duty to adequately traill and

24 supervise Defendant's employees, and to adopt andlor enforce policies and procedures for the

25 proper hiring, trai ning, and supervision of Defend ant's employees.

26

27

FIRST AMEN DED COMPLAINT C.())I·2301 BZ

- 29-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 30 of 34

135. By their acts and omissions, De fendants breached the above mentioned duties owed

2 to Plaintiffs Williams, Scott, Coleman, Bunton and Payne. Further, it was reasonably foreseeable

3 that their breach of duty would cause emotional harm to Plaintiffs and the loss of or damage to

4 Plaintiffs' property and/or interest in property.

5

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship

7

(On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendant)

8

136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set f0l1h in the paragraphs above.

9

137. At all times prior to her vacating the premises, Plaintiff Payne and her landlord had

lOa va lid contract for the rental of 1975 Mokelumne Drive, Antioch, California. Implied in the

II contract was a covenant of good faith and fair dea ling between Ms. Payne and her landlord.

12

138. In contacting Plainti ff Payne's landlord th rough the above described letters and

13 call s containing unsupported allegations that Pl aint iff and her famil y had engaged in criminal or

14 un lawful activity o n the premises, Defendant induced the land lord to terminate Plaintiffs lease

15 and procured a breach by the landlord of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to

16 Plaintiff.

17

139. But for Defendant's actions, Payne's landlord would not have terminated her lease.

18

140. APD and CAT offi cer comm uni cations with the land lords of Pl ainti ffs W il liams,

19 Scott and Coleman, co ntaini ng unsupported all egat ions that Plaintiffs had engaged in criminal

20 and/or unlawful activity on the premises and threateni ng landlords with civil and criminal

21 liabi lity if they continue to rent to Plaintiffs were and are attempts to induce these landlords to

22 tenninate the leases and procure breaches by the land lords of the covenant of good fait h and fa ir

23 dealing owed to Pla intiffs .

24

141. As a d irect and proximate cause of Defendant's actions, the pcrfOlmance of

25 Plaintiffs Will iams, Scott and Coleman under their leases was made more burdensome or costly.

26

27

FIRST AMENDEDCOMI'LAINT C-08 -2301 BZ

- 30-

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 31 of 34

RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

2

142. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations sct fort h in the paragraphs above.

3

143. Defendant's conduct described above is ongoing and wi ll continue to occur unless

4 restrained and enjoined by th is Court.

S

144. A dispute ex ists between Pl aintiffs and the cl ass they represent and Defendant as to

6 their respective duties under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Slates

7 Constitution; Fair Housing Act; 42 U.S.c. § 1983; California Constitution articl e I, sections 7

8 and 13 ; California Government Code § I [ 135 and its implem enting regu lations; the Cali forn ia

9 Fair Employment & Housing Act; and the Bane Act and as to whether Defendant 's actions

10 violated, and continues to viol ate, any of these laws. Plaintiffs and the class they represent

II theretore seek judicial declarations setting forth their respective rights and duties under these

12 laws.

13

145. Defendant's act ions described in the para!,'Taphs above violate the Fourth and

14 Fourteenth Amendments to the Uni ted States Constitution; Fa ir Housing Act; 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

15 California Co nstitution arti cle I, section 7 and 13; California Government Code § 11135 and its

16 implement ing regulations; the California Fair Employment & Housing Act; and the Bane Act.

17 Defendant will continue these policies and practices and will directl y affect each individual

18 Plaintiff and the class they represent unless enjoined by thi s Court.

19

146. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

20 law to redress the violations alleged herein, and the injunctive relief soughl in thi s action is the

2 1 only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class th ey represent are

22 now suffering and will cont in ue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendant's di scriminatory acts

23 and omissions.

24

147. Plaintiffs are indi gent, and ifan injunction issues the Court should wa ive the

25 posting of bond.

26

27

FIRST AMEN DED COMPLAINT C-08· 2301 BZ

• 31 .

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 32 of 34

148. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs Williams, Scott,

2 Coleman, Bunion and Payne have suffered damages in an amount according to proof, including

3 emotional distress. loss of securit y, and out·of-pocket expenses.

4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

5

I. Cert ify this action as a class action on behalf of all African-Americans who have

6

held, currentl y hold, may hold, or are erroneously regarded by the City and

7

officers of the Antioch Poli ce Department as holding, Section 8 housing vouchers

8

and all members of their households who reside, have resided or will reside, in th .

9

City Antioch; and designate Plaintiffs as representati ves of the class and their

10

counsel of record as Class Counsel;

II

2.

Issue a prelim inary and pennanent injunction agai nst Defendant and its officers,

12

agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in

13

concert with them, prohibiting them from:

14

a. Disproportionately targeting class members for criminal investigat ion o n a

15

basis differently from si milarl y si tuated non class members;

16

b. engaging in, or seek ing to engage in, unlawful and pretextual searches of the

17

homes of class members~

18

c. hand li ng disturbance or nui sance complaints concerning Section 8 households

19

differently from non-Section 8 households~

20

d. communicating. in writing or othelWise, fa lse or unlawfu lly obtained

21

infonnation of criminal and nuisance activity about class members to the

22

Housing Authority of the County of Con tra Costa or to class members'

23

landlords;

24

e. engaging in communicat ions, written or othclWise, to class members'

25

landlords for the purpose of causing class members' eviction~

26

f. soliciting complaints about class members from their neighbors and others~

27

FI RST AMENDED COM PLAINT C..()S·230t OZ

- 32 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 33 of 34

3.

Issue a judicial declaration that Defendant's actions as alleged in thi s complaint

2

violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Uni ted States Constitution;

3

Fai r Housing Act; 42 U.S.c. § \983 ; California Constitut ion article I, sect ions 7

4

and 13; Cal ifo mia Government Code § 11135 and its implementing regulations;

5

the Cali fornia Fair Employment & Housing Act; and the Bane Act;

6

4.

Provide for statutory minimum dama ges on behalf of th e class, pursuant to

7

Cali forni a Civil Code § 52;

8

5. Provide for compensatory, special and statutory damages on behalf of the

9

indi vidual Plaintiffs, according to proof, said damages to be trebled pursuant to

10

Civil Code § 52;

II

6.

Provide for preMjudgmcnt and post-judgment interest to the extent pcnnitted by

12

law;

13

7.

Provide for costs and expenses of the suit incurred herein, including reasonable

14

attorneys' fees to the extent available by law; and

IS

8.

Provide for s uch other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems

16

necessary. just and proper.

17

Demand for Jury Trial

18

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 38(b), and Northern Distri ct Local Rule 3M6,

19 Pl aintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

20 2 1 DATED: Jul y 16,2008
22
23 24 25 26

By~~~~~~~~~~~_
Brad 19man (State Bar No. 083838)
bseligman@ impact fund .org
Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817) Alvaro D. Soria (SBN 247532) IMPACT FUND 125 University Ave., Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 947 10 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 Facsimile: (510) 845-3654

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT C·OS-HO I J3Z

- 33 -

Case 3:08-cv-02301-BZ Document 12 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 34 of 34

Oren M. Sell strom (SBN 161074)

oseilstrom@lccr.com

2

Kendra Fox-Davis (SBN 248757)

Charles Forster (SBN 252826)

3

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY

4

AREA

131 Steuart St. , Suite 400

5

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 543-9444

6

Facsimile: (415) 543-0296

7

Alan L. Schlosser (SBN 49957)

aschl osscr@acl unc.org

8

AMER ICAN CIVIL LIB ERT IES UNION

9

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

10

39 Drumm 51.
San Francisco, CA 94111

II

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsim il e: (4 15) 255-8437

12

Richard A. Marcantonio (SBN 139619)

13

Rrnarcantonio@publicadvocates.org Michell e Natividad Rodriguez (SBN

14

226683)

PUBLIC ADVOCATES, INC.

15

131 Steuart St., Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94 (05

16

Telephone: (415) 43 1-7430

Facsimile: (415) 431-1048

17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed

18

Class

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT C-08-2301 BZ

- 34 -

 
 Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page1 of 32

1 Impact Fund BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
2 bseligman@impactfund.org JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 110817)
3 125 University Avenue, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710
4 Telephone: 510.845.3473 Facsimile: 510.845.3654
5 Bingham McCutchen LLP
6 FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844) ABIGAIL C. SLONECKER (SBN 252452)
7 abigail.slonecker@bingham.com Three Embarcadero Center
8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.393.2000
9 Facsimile: 415.393.2286

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN
11 LATREECE COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE
12 Additional Counsel Listed After Signature Page
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY
16 RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and
17 ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

18 Plaintiffs,

19

v.

20 CITY OF ANTIOCH,

No. C-08-2301 SBA
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SUPPORTING POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Date: January 12, 2010 Time: 1:00 p.m.

21

Defendant.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page2 of 32

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 NOTICE OF MOTION .................................................................................................................. 1

4 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
5

6 FACTUAL STATEMENT ............................................................................................................ 2

7 LEGAL ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 19
8

9

A. Proposed Class Definition.................................................................................... 20

10

B. All Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied ..................................................... 20

11

1. The Proposed Class is Sufficiently Numerous......................................... 20

12

2. The Class Shares Common Questions of Law and Fact .......................... 21

13

3. The Named Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical ............................................. 22

4. The Named Plaintiffs are Adequate Class Representatives ..................... 22

14

15

C. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b) .................................................. 23

16

1. The Court Should Certify the Class Under Rule 23(b)(2) ....................... 23

2. Alternatively, the Court Could Certify the Class under Rule

17

23(b)(3) or Use Hybrid Certification ....................................................... 24

18 D. Appointment of Class Counsel ............................................................................ 25
19

20 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 i

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page3 of 32

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3 CASES

4 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,

5

521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................................................ 23

6 Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Public Safety, 2006 WL 2168637 (D. Ariz. July 31, 2006) ........................................................................... 20

7 Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.,

8

158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ............................................................................................ 23

9 Barefield v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 1988 WL 188433 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 1988) ...................................................................... 23, 24
10

11

Botosan v. Paul McNalley Realty, 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir 2000).................................................................................................... 24

12 Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp.,

13

249 F.R.D. 334 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ................................................................................ 19, 20, 21

14 Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n,

611 F. Supp. 2d 994 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................... 18 15

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,

16

417 U.S. 156 (1974) ................................................................................................................ 19

17 Gen. Tel. of the Southwest v. Falcon,

18

457 U.S. 147 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 19, 22

19 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)................................................................................................. 23 20

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,

21

976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)................................................................................................... 20

22 Hickey v. City of Seattle,

23

236 F.R.D. 659 (W.D. Wash. 2006) ....................................................................................... 20

24 Hnot v. Willis Group Holding,

241 F.R.D. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ............................................................................................ 21

25

Int’l Molders & Allied Workers’ Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson,

26

102 F.R.D. 457 (N.D. Cal. 1983) ............................................................................................ 20

27 Kincaid v. City of Fresno,

28

244 F.R.D. 597 (E.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................................ 20

ii

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page4 of 32

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3 Ledford v. City of Highland Park, 2000 WL 1053967 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2000)............................................................................ 20
4

5

Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 2009 WL 2590628 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2009) .................................................................. 20, 24

6 Mathers v. Northshore Mining Co.,

7

217 F.R.D. 474 (D. Minn. 2003)............................................................................................. 24

8 Molski v. Gleich,

318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 24 9

Parra v. Bashas’ Inc.,

10

536 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 21

11 Pfaff v. HUD,

12

88 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................... 18

13 Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R.,

267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001).................................................................................................... 24 14

Sisemore v. Master Fin., Inc.,

15

151 Cal. App. 4th 1386 (2007) ............................................................................................... 18

16 Staton v. Boeing,

17

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. 19, 22

18 The Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto,

2009 WL 3208728 (9th Cir, Oct. 8, 2009).............................................................................. 18

19

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp,

20

429 U.S. 252 (1977) ................................................................................................................ 19

21 STATUTES
22 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................................................................................... 19
23 42 U.S.C. § 3617 ........................................................................................................................... 18
24 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a) & 52.1(b)................................................................................................ 19
25 Cal. Gov’t Code § 11139 .............................................................................................................. 19
26 Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135 ........................................................................................................ 18, 19
27 Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955(d),(g) & (k), (p)(1) ............................................................................... 18
28 iii

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page5 of 32

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

2

Page

3 Cal. Gov’t Code §12955.7, §12955.8(b)....................................................................................... 18

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 iv

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page6 of 32

1

NOTICE OF MOTION

2

On January 12, 2010 at 1 p.m., in Courtroom 1, before the Honorable Saundra Brown

3 Armstrong, United States District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA. 94612,

4 Plaintiffs will move for order certifying the following class under Federal Rule of Civil

5 Procedure 23(b)(2): all African Americans who have held, currently hold, may hold, or are

6 erroneously regarded by the City and officers of the Antioch Police Department as holding,

7 Section 8 housing vouchers, and all members of their households, who reside, have resided or

8 will reside, in the City of Antioch.

9

INTRODUCTION

10

In recent years, the City of Antioch has experienced an increase in the number of

11 residents renting homes with the help of Section 8 federal housing assistance. Many of these

12 residents are African-American. In 2006, a vocal group of homeowners unleashed a political

13 “firestorm” of protest about these newcomers. They objected to Section 8 tenants living in

14 “luxury” homes in their neighborhoods and blamed them for a perceived increase in crime. As

15 one like-minded City Councilperson exclaimed, “We’re not going to let our city become

16 Richmond . . . we’re not going to stand by and let Antioch go to hell.”

17

In response to the public scapegoating, Antioch officials established the Community

18 Action Team (CAT), a police task force which was given a broad mandate to combat “problem

19 houses.” Although fewer than 6% of Antioch households are Section 8 recipients, they became

20 the main focus of the CAT unit. Enlisting the help of an outspoken anti-Section 8 group, CAT

21 officers eschewed their traditional law enforcement role in favor of ferreting out potential

22 Section 8 lease violations or nuisance allegations. CAT officers then used this information to

23 press the Housing Authority to revoke Section 8 vouchers and to frighten landlords into evicting

24 their tenants. This focus on Section 8 had a predictable and substantial impact on African-

25 American Section 8 households: more than two-thirds of the Section 8 families targeted by CAT

26 were African-American.

27

On behalf of themselves and similarly situated class members, the Plaintiffs, five

28 African-American mothers and Section 8 recipients, contend that CAT targeted African-

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page7 of 32

1 American Section 8 recipients for undue scrutiny and harassment, violating their federal and

2 state fair housing and constitutional rights. They allege race discrimination based upon theories

3 of both disparate impact (where no intent need be proven) and disparate treatment (where proof

4 of intent is required). Plaintiffs also allege that these actions violate a state law prohibition on

5 discrimination based on “source of income,” which requires no proof of race discrimination,

6 intentional or otherwise.

7

Plaintiffs now move to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8 23(b)(2) on behalf of African-American Section 8 recipients in Antioch. This motion does not

9 require the Court to address the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, but rather to determine whether

10 plaintiffs have alleged common policies or practices that are suitable for class treatment. Since

11 plaintiffs brought this case to obtain injunctive relief to change the practices of the Antioch

12 police, the case should be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). These class members are living in

13 poverty and struggling to provide a decent life for their families. A class action is the only

14 practical means of ensuring their right to be left alone without the constant threat of police

15 harassment.

16

FACTUAL STATEMENT

17

Section 8 Rentals in Antioch – Many single family homes in Antioch became available

18 for rent in recent years. Larkin Decl., Ex. 1 (Gilbert Dep. 61:16 – 62:2). Some homeowners

19 chose to rent to families in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8

20 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Id., Ex. 16 (11/14/06 Tamayo Rpt. to Bd. of

21 Commissioners). The voucher program allows low-income families to lease a home on the

22 private rental market. Eligible families pay no more than 40% of their income in rent, and the

23 voucher covers the remainder up to a HUD-established Fair Market Rent cap. Id. The Housing

24 Authority of the County of Contra Costa (the “Housing Authority”) administers the Section 8

25 program. Id., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep. 15:9–16:1). Because of the availability of affordable rentals,

26 the number of Section 8 units in Antioch increased. Id., Ex. 1 (Gilbert Dep. 60:12–25). From

27

28 2

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page8 of 32

1 2006–2009, there were 1,902 voucher recipients in Antioch, a majority of whom (55.8 %) were 2 African American. Krisberg Decl. at 12:13–15.1

3

Public Scapegoating of Section 8 Participants – In mid-2006, a group of Antioch

4 residents began to raise objections to Section 8 tenants whom they perceived were undermining

5 the city’s “quality of life.” They organized under the name ‘United Citizens for Better

6 Neighborhoods’ (UCBN) with the avowed purpose of “combat[ing] problems associated with

7 Section 8 rentals.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 17 (UCBN Mission Statement). In June 2006, the group’s

8 leader, Gary Gilbert, demanded that the mayor put the issue of Section 8 on the next City

9 Council agenda. Id., Ex. 18 (6/23/06 Freitas-Gilbert E-Mail). “This issue has created a 10 ‘firestorm’ in this community and the people of Antioch want to be heard.”2 Id. City Manager

11 James Jakel acknowledged that the city was under pressure to respond to the “firestorm” about

12 Section 8 rentals, which had become a political issue. Id., Ex. 3 (Jakel Dep. 20:1–18, 24:7–11,

13 37:19–38:11).

14

At City Council meetings and a series of Council-sponsored “quality of life” forums,

15 Section 8 recipients were blamed for many of the City’s problems. Larkin Decl., Ex. 19 (9/26/06

16 Tamayo Rpt. to Board of Commissioners). Some of the public discourse expressed overtly racist

17 views about African Americans. Id., Ex. 4 (Freitas Dep. 101:10–23, 112:14–23); Id., Ex. 5

18 (Simonsen Dep. 43:4–8, 83:11–15); Id., Ex. 20 (4/15/07 “Death of Antioch” Citizen E-Mail). City

19 Council members Simonsen and Kalinowski made racially coded comparisons to Richmond, a

20 city with a higher concentration of African Americans and a higher crime rate. Dang Decl. ¶ 10.

21 “We’re not going to let our city become Richmond…we’re not going to stand by and let Antioch 22 go to hell.” Id. at ¶ 10(d).3 Antioch’s mayor publicly bemoaned the fact that the city had more

23 1

Barry Krisberg, plaintiffs’ statistical expert, is the President of the National Council on

24 Crime and Delinquency, the nation’s oldest criminal justice research organization. Krisberg Decl. at 1:11-12. Dr. Krisberg analyzed statistical data provided in discovery from the Antioch

25

Police Department and the Housing Authority.

2

Gary Gilbert, who is African American, is a former employee of the Housing Authority

26

of Contra Costa County. Larkin Decl., Ex. 1 (Gilbert Dep. 16:14 – 17:1).

3

Former Police Chief Mark Moczulski testified that he believed such remarks were

27 stereotypes “directed at the Black community.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 7 (Moczulski Dep 96:1897:13).

28

3

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page9 of 32

1 than its “fair share” of Section 8 tenants. Larkin Decl., Ex. 4 (Freitas Dep. 37:12–16; 50:23–

2 52:13 (“We think we’re taking the lion’s share. We don’t like it”)); Dang Decl. ¶ 10(a).

3

Public officials and opponents complained vociferously that Section 8 tenants should not

4 be allowed to rent “luxury” homes in nice neighborhoods. Larkin Decl., Ex. 21 (4/15/07

5 “Luxury Homes” Citizen E-mail); Id., Ex. 22 (6/13/07 “Luxury Homes” Citizen Petition); Id.,

6 Ex. 5 (Simonsen Dep. 27:17–20); Id., Ex. 4 (Freitas Dep. 58:1–61:24). The Housing Authority

7 explained to city officials that the Section 8 voucher program permits participants to use their

8 vouchers to rent single-family homes at fair market value and that it did not control which homes

9 or neighborhoods the voucher recipient selected. Councilman Simonsen nonetheless condemned

10 Section 8 tenants living in homes with pools and publicly exhorted the Housing Authority not to

11 follow federal regulations. “Here’s a chance for the housing authority to do a little civil

12 disobedience. Defy the rules of HUD. Defy the rules of the state…” Id., Ex. 5 (Simonsen Dep.

13 29:21–31:6); Dang Decl. ¶ 10(b).

14

The city’s newly-hired police chief, James Hyde, likewise expressed his disapproval of

15 “issuing Section 8 vouchers to luxury homes,” even though he understood that it was not a law

16 enforcement concern. Id., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep. 162:1–164:1); Id., Ex. 23 (2/23/07 News Article on 17 Hyde Presentation); Id., Ex. 24 (10/19/06 Hyde-Jakel E-mail).4 Chief Hyde nevertheless added

18 further fuel to the fire with a public presentation in which he showed photographs of large

19 homes, each described as having an “approximate market value of one million dollars,” where

20 Section 8 tenants purportedly lived. Id., Ex. 25 (1/27/07 Hyde Quality of Life Presentation). 21 One slide was entitled “Section 8 Fraud Facts.” Id.5

22 4

Former Police Chief Mark Moczulski testified that it was not the role of the Antioch

23 police to proactively investigate HUD violations or alleged Section 8 fraud, any more than it would be for it to investigate violations of homeowner association rules. Larkin Decl., Ex. 7

24

(Moczulski Dep. 70:2–24).

5

Other senior police officials held strong political views about who should live in Antioch

25 and the Section 8 program. Memo after memo focused on the fact that Section 8 recipients should not be occupying expensive properties, even though it was not a violation of Section 8

26 rules. Larkin Decl., Ex. 31 (10/17/06 McConnell-Jakel E-Mail); Id., Ex. 24 (10/19/06 HydeJakel E-Mail re: Early Retirement). Captain Stephen McConnell vented his personal opinions

27 about the Section 8 program and described a landlord willing to rent a large single family home to a Section 8 recipient as a “slumlord.” Id., Ex. 8 (McConnell Dep. 82:8 – 83:22).

28

4

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page10 of 32

1

Chief Hyde displayed a map of the city at this public presentation, with marks indicating

2 which homes were Section 8 rentals, and described the “overconcentration of Section 8 voucher

3 property or problem property” in the higher-income Southeast area (94531 zip code). Id., Ex. 26

4 (1/27/07 Hyde Presentation (including map of Section 8 residents concentration in Antioch));

5 Larkin Decl., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep. 179:25–180:20). The Southeast (zip code 94531) is comprised of

6 newer, single-family homes, where the median household income is $102,943. Id., Ex. 27

7 (9/26/06 Housing Auth. Powerpoint). In contrast, the older Northwest (94509) contains the

8 downtown, where Antioch’s highest-crime areas are located. Id., Ex. 28 (June 2009 Antioch

9 “Person Crime” Map); Id., Ex. 8 (McConnell Dep. 177:22–179:25); Id., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep.

10 47:2–48:5). The median household income in 94509 is just $58,285. Id., Ex. 27 (9/26/06

11 Housing Auth. Powerpoint). Most Section 8 recipients live in the 94509 zip code. Of those who

12 live in the 94531 zip code, however, nearly 75% are African-American. Dang Decl. ¶ 5(d).

13

Many, including UCBN’s leader, publicly blamed the influx of Section 8 tenants for a

14 perceived increase in crime. Larkin Decl., Ex. 29 (11/18/06 Gilbert Contra Costa Times Op-Ed);

15 Larkin Decl., Ex. 4 (Freitas Dep. 35:11–15). In fact, the city had no evidence, then or now, that

16 any increase in crime in Antioch was linked to the Section 8 influx. Id., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep.

17 32:21–33:8); Id., Ex. 4 (Freitas Dep. 86:8–88:20, 120:15–121:3); Id., Ex. 67 (Def. Interr.

18 Responses, No. 15). Rather than quell public hysteria, Chief Hyde made a public presentation

19 that expressly linked Section 8 tenants and crime, based on a few anecdotes. Id., Ex. 25 (1/27/07

20 Hyde Quality of Life Presentation). Public officials declared the city’s “zero tolerance for

21 Section 8 participants criminal and other noncompliant behaviors.” Id., Ex. 30 (10/23/06 City

22 Officials-HUD Mtg. Notes) (emphasis added). One Section 8 recipient who attended a Quality

23 of Life Forum in July 2007 observed that a number of citizens were “angry and hostile towards

24 Section 8. . .blaming Section 8 for all of the City’s problems” and that city officials and the

25 police chief appeared to agree with this perception. Alexander Decl. ¶ 12; see also Glasper Decl.

26 ¶¶ 6–7.

27

The United Citizens for Better Neighborhoods began to compile a list of the addresses

28 where Section 8 vouchers had been or would be accepted and made the list available on its 5

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page11 of 32

1 website. Larkin Decl., Ex. 1 (Gilbert Dep. 83:12–23). Signs appeared on the doors of some

2 renters stating: “No more Rentals. No More Section 8. Save Antioch NOW. We THE

3 RESIDENTS are watching YOU.” Id., Ex. 32 (Anti-Section 8 Flyer); Id., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep.

4 59:10 – 60:10); Rogers Decl. ¶ 6 (anti-Section 8 flyer posted on African-American neighbor’s

5 door).

6

As one possible solution, officials sought to limit the number of Section 8 recipients

7 allowed to live in Antioch, but were told by the Housing Authority and HUD that this could not

8 be done. Larkin Decl., Ex. 3 (Jakel Dep. 38:20–39:25); Id., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep. 141:2–14). The

9 city turned, instead, to its police force to accomplish this purpose.

10

The Community Action Team – In response to the public “firestorm” against Section 8

11 recipients, the city established CAT in July 2006. Id., Ex. 4 (Freitas Dep. 96:20–24); Id., Ex. 1

12 (Gilbert Dep. 64:12–15). Initially named the “Problem Housing Unit,” CAT is comprised of

13 four full-time officers (one sergeant, one corporal and two officers). Id., Ex. 33 (11/28/06

14 McConnell Memo). CAT has never had an African-American officer. Id., Ex. 9 (Schwitters

15 Dep. 157:17–158:10).

16

CAT is intended to be a “stand-alone” unit, which is “proactive,” “self-initiating” and

17 “autonomous.” Id., Ex. 10 (McConnell 30(b)(6) Dep. 102:1–18). There is no policy or

18 definition of what constitutes a “CAT case.” Id. (McConnell 30(b)(6) Dep. 64:10–19). Instead,

19 CAT officers are given virtually unlimited discretion, based on their “common sense,” to select

20 which locations to investigate and how to conduct those investigations. Id. (McConnell 30(b)(6)

21 Dep. 64:20–65:2); Larkin Decl., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep. 48:10–19, 56:17–22, 103:16–104:1).

22

CAT Targets Section 8 – From its inception, the majority of CAT’s work and resources

23 has been dedicated to the investigation of Section 8 homes. Larkin Decl., Ex. 25 (1/27/2007

24 Hyde Quality of Life Presentation (63% of 2006 CAT cases are Section 8)); Id., Ex. 34 (7/12/07

25 Schwitters-McConnell E-Mail (Between July 2006 to June 2007, 66-71% of CAT cases are

26 Section 8)); Id., Ex. 33 (11/28/06 McConnell Memo (high percentage of CAT resources devoted

27 to Section 8)). In community meetings, the Police Chief highlighted CAT’s focus on Section 8

28 cases. See, e.g., Larkin Decl., Ex. 25 (1/27/07 Hyde Quality of Life Pres.). A CAT officer 6

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page12 of 32

1 confirmed that Section 8 problem houses “are getting our utmost attention right now.” Larkin

2 Decl., Ex. 35 (9/4/06 Dillard-Gilbert E-Mail).

3

Statistical data confirms CAT’s focus on Section 8: in its first year of operation, 58% of

4 CAT targets were Section 8, even though only 4.7% of Antioch households were Section 8.

5 Among rental locations targeted by CAT, an astonishing 76.7% were Section 8. Krisberg Decl.

6 at 8: 3–6. Over the entire period of 2006–09, nearly two-thirds of the rental units targeted by

7 CAT were Section 8. Id. at 10: 2–5. Section 8 households in the wealthier zip code were three

8 times as likely to be designated as a CAT house than those in the poorer zip code, even though

9 the high crime areas were in the poorer zip code. Larkin Decl., Ex. 8 (McConnell Dep. 177:25–

10 178:15); Id., Ex. 28 (Antioch June 2009 “Person Crime” Map, Ex. 28); Id., Ex. 11 (Bittner Dep.

11 121:22–122:14); Krisberg Decl. at 18:6–8.

12

CAT Written Policies – CAT procedures are set forth in the “C.A.T. Case Flow Chart,”

13 which documents how CAT targeted and investigated Section 8 homes. Larkin Decl., Ex. 36 14 (C.A.T. Case Flow Chart).6 At the intake phase, CAT officers determine ownership status of the

15 property, including whether it is “HUD,” i.e., Section 8. Id. At the investigation stage, officers

16 are to make contact with neighbors or leave door hangers, and contact the local HUD office to

17 “confirm if target location is receiving section 8 assistance and who the authorized residents

18 are.” Id. Then, at the enforcement stage, officers are to contact the target resident and “[u]se this

19 initial contact to gather information about any and all residents in the household for possible use

20 of unauthorized residency through section 8 or landlord tenant agreements. . . .” Id. An “offense

21 report” is to be made “for any target locations which are section 8 subsidized which are in

22 violation of law or section 8 rules,” and the information is to be turned over to HUD

23 “documenting any and all violations of law or section 8 rules.” Id. The evidence demonstrates

24 that CAT officers closely followed this playbook.

25

Determination of Section 8 Status – Consistent with the Flow Chart, Antioch police

26 6

Chief Hyde reviewed and approved this Flow Chart, which is used to train new officers.

27 Larkin Decl. Ex. 67 (Defendant’s Interr. Responses, No. 6 at 6); Larkin Decl., Ex. 67 (Hyde Dep. 42:25-43:20, 47:25-48:2); Id., Ex. 10 (McConnell 30(b)(6) 62:18-63:10).

28

7

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page13 of 32

1 actively sought to determine which residents were on Section 8. Larkin Decl., Ex. 9 (Schwitters

2 Dep. 60:9–16, 61:3–19); Larkin Decl., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep. 57:1–25). Antioch police and city

3 officials repeatedly pressed the Housing Authority to provide a complete list of all Section 8

4 recipients in Antioch. Larkin Decl., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep. 65:21–66:10). Answer to First

5 Amended Complaint ¶ 11. County counsel ultimately determined that the Housing Authority

6 could not legally release the list. Larkin Decl., Ex. 37 (6/4/07 Schwitters-Hildebrand E-Mail); 7 Larkin Decl., Ex. 38 (12/18/07 County Counsel Letter).7 By then, CAT had developed other

8 tactics for obtaining this information. CAT officers asked residents, homeowners and neighbors

9 directly if the resident was a Section 8 recipient. Larkin Decl., Ex. 9 (Schwitters Dep. 61:1–19);

10 T. Thomas Decl. ¶ 7; D. Rogers Decl. ¶ 7; Day-Bennett Decl. ¶ 7; Alexander Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8; L.

11 Thomas Decl. ¶ 5. They obtained records of water and garbage service for the property and

12 cross-referenced them with their “section 8 lists.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 39 (Sept. 2006 C.A.T.

13 Highlights). They created a large map of Section 8 properties that was maintained in the CAT

14 office. Id., Ex. 9 (Schwitters Dep. 263:5–23).

15

Solicitation of Neighbor Complaints – City officials and the police, working closely with

16 UCBN, encouraged neighbors to submit complaints about Section 8 residents, either to CAT for

17 investigation or directly to the Housing Authority. Larkin Decl., Ex. 40 (7/11/06 Antioch City

18 Council Meeting Minutes). UCBN leader Gary Gilbert was in regular communication with CAT

19 officers, transmitting numerous complaints against Section 8 tenants. Id., Ex. 41 (4/28/08

20 Schwitters-Gilbert E-Mail); Id., Ex. 42 (8/9/06 Gilbert-Bittner E-Mail); Id., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep.

21 271:21–272:17); Id., Ex. 12 (Cantando Dep. 58:22–59:10). In turn, CAT officers reported back

22 to Gilbert the results of their Section 8 investigations, with instructions to share the news with

23 other UCBN members. Id., Ex. 35 (9/4/06 Dillard-Gilbert E-Mail); Id., Ex. 6 (Hyde Dep.

24 272:18–273:11). In an e-mail to Gilbert, a CAT officer disclosed the details of several on-going

25 investigations and encouraged Gilbert to “keep the e-mails coming.” Id., Ex. 35 (9/4/06 Dillard-

26 7

The Housing Authority Director feared that, with the complete list, Section 8 tenants

27 would be “targeted” by CAT, and “they would be additional pins put on a board that the Antioch Police Department had.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep. 68:2-9).

28

8

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page14 of 32

1 Gilbert E-Mail). The head of the CAT unit gave Gilbert his personal cell phone number and

2 encouraged him to “never hesitate to call me or email me.” Id., Ex. 41 (4/28/08 Schwitters-

3 Gilbert E-Mail). Antioch officers and staff also frequently referred matters to CAT for

4 investigation when they suspected that the tenants were on Section 8. Id., Ex. 43 (3/9/07

5 Rezentes-Bittner E-Mail); Id., Ex. 44 (10/9/07 Bias-Schwitters E-Mail); Id., Ex. 45 (12/14/06

6 Schwitters E-Mail to APD).

7

CAT officers also placed door hangers on the front doors of the neighbors of suspected

8 targets, asking them to call to discuss “quality of life” issues on the street. Larkin Decl., Ex. 46

9 (APD Door Hanger); Id., Ex. 30 (10/23/06 Notes from Antioch City Council Meeting with HUD

10 (“Door hangers are used in problem areas asking neighbors to report neighborhood concerns.”));

11 Id., Ex. 47 (C.A.T. Monthly Reports July 2006–June 2008, at D0014569 (CAT reports door

12 hangers are “[g]reat P.R. and communication tools.”)). See also L. Thomas Decl. ¶ 12

13 (neighbors told by officers that declarant was Section 8 and should call with complaints).

14

In response to this encouragement, citizens sent complaints to the police, noting explicitly

15 that the tenants were or might be Section 8 recipients. CAT would then investigate to confirm

16 Section 8 status. See, e.g., Larkin Decl., Ex. 48 (7/10/07 Bias-McConnell E-Mail); Id., Ex. 49

17 (9/26/06 Bittner Event Report).

18

The neighbor complaints often had little to do with suspected criminal activity, but

19 instead objected to barking dogs, loud music or unkempt lawns. Rogers Decl. ¶ 5 (grass too long

20 and car parked improperly); L. Thomas Decl. ¶ 10 (loud music and broken bottles); Bunton Decl.

21 ¶ 5 (teenage son playing basketball in the evening); Williams Decl. ¶ 6 (barking dogs). One

22 UCBN member complained in an e-mail to CAT about “George,” an African-American 6th

23 grader who misbehaved at the pool and advised CAT to “put this family on your radar list.

24 Nothing criminal yet, but they have potential.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 50 (6/12/08 Gilbert E-Mail);

25 Dang Decl. ¶ 9. Another neighbor objected that the owner of an empty home on her street was

26 making the home available for Section 8 rentals and beseeched the city to prevent any Section 8

27 tenant from moving in. “These beautiful homes end up being rented to unscreened,

28 disrespectful, and other criminal tenants and ruin the homes and the surrounding 9

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page15 of 32

1 neighborhoods.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 51 (2/16/07 Hyde E-Mail Re: Citizen Complaint). Despite

2 the fact that the complaint raised no criminal or nuisance conduct and was empty, CAT

3 investigated it. Id.

4

CAT also assisted citizens in submitting complaints about Section 8 tenants directly to

5 the Housing Authority, with hard copy forms and a link on their website. Larkin Decl., Ex. 52

6 (C.A.T. Webpage); Id., Ex. 53 (8/9/06 Schwitters-APD E-Mail Re: Section 8 Citizen Complaint

7 Forms). A Housing Authority official familiar with these complaints testified that the police

8 encouraged residents to submit complaints about anything they found bothersome. Id., Ex. 65

9 (Tuggles McNab Dep. 103:10–21). These included a complaint that a Section 8 tenant had

10 Christmas tree lights on the home, and another caller who wanted a curfew for Section 8

11 recipients. Id., Ex. 65 (Tuggles McNab Dep. 102:3–11). The majority of the citizen complaints

12 to the Housing Authority came from the wealthier 94531 area code. Id., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep.

13 48:6–10, Ex. 2).

14

Use of Domestic Violence Incidents – CAT also used Section 8 tenants’ own calls for

15 help to the police as an opportunity to build a case for Section 8 violations. See e.g. Williams

16 Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff Alyce Payne made calls to the police for incidents of domestic violence, and

17 evidence collected in those calls then became the basis for CAT’s referral of Payne to the

18 Housing Authority. Payne Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 8, 10 & Exh. B. The Housing Authority declined to

19 proceed with termination because federal regulations prohibit revocation arising from domestic

20 violence. Larkin Decl., Ex. 2 (Tamayo Dep. 91:11–92:1). CAT officers conceded that they were

21 aware that incidents of domestic violence were not grounds for revoking the Section 8 assistance

22 of the victim. Id., Ex. 9 (Schwitters Dep. 283: 9–18); Id., Ex. 11 (Bittner Dep. 255: 3–21).

23 Nonetheless, they submitted revocation referrals to the Housing Authority for these women,

24 without informing the agency that the tenants were domestic violence victims. Id. (Bittner Dep.

25 300:2–304:18).

26

Home Searches – CAT routinely used warrantless home visits and searches to target class

27 members and build a case for revocation against Section 8 tenants. Larkin Decl., Ex. 13 (Bias

28 Dep. 117:20–118:3). CAT has never obtained a single search warrant for any of the hundreds of 10

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page16 of 32

1 investigations that it has conducted. Id., Ex. 10 (McConnell 30(b)(6) Dep. 118:2–25). Instead,

2 the officers often assert that Section 8 tenants “consent” to a search or conduct parole/probation 3 searches.8 See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 10–11; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12; K. Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 15–20, 23;

4 Bunton Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 11; Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 5–12 (after repeated unsuccessful visits to find

5 evidence of unauthorized resident, CAT conducted a 5 a.m. “parole” search although parolee did

6 not live with declarant and was not at the resident’s home); T. Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9 (probation

7 search of car and of home to find unauthorized residents); Threets Decl. ¶ 6 (declarant subjected

8 to unauthorized home search); Alexander Decl. ¶ 13 (family handcuffed and subjected to home

9 search by SWAT team with machine guns, officers later admitted it was the wrong address); L.

10 Thomas Decl. ¶ 6 (police falsely told declarant they could search because she was on Section 8,

11 then proceeded to do so); Gray Decl. ¶¶ 6–25.

12

CAT Referrals to the Housing Authority Seeking Revocation of Section 8 Vouchers – In

13 all, CAT referred 137 families to the Housing Authority for revocation of Section 8 vouchers,

14 nearly 70% of them African Americans. Krisberg Decl. at 16: 3–5. CAT letters to the Housing

15 Authority often contained no information about criminal activity, but instead just focused on

16 Section 8 violations. Larkin Decl., Ex. 13 (Bias Dep. 132:24–133:5); L. Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 7–8.

17

CAT strongly pressed for the revocation of these recipients’ benefits. In February 2007,

18 Captain McConnell noted that the most significant obstacle to CAT’s success was the slow pace

19 at which the Housing Authority was processing the cases that CAT had “submitted for

20 revocation.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 54 (2/18/07 McConnell Memo). In October 2007, after the

21 Housing Authority declined to terminate some of the voucher recipients submitted by CAT,

22 McConnell fumed that the Housing Authority was giving the police department “a black eye.”

23 Id., Ex. 55 (10/16/07 McConnell-Hildebrand E-mail). CAT would resubmit cases to the Housing

24 Authority “because they did not take care of business the first time we submitted them. . . .” Id.,

25 8

The police department has a written consent form that is part of its protocol for

26 conducting a consent search; and officers are trained to use them and carry them in the patrol car. Larkin Decl., Ex. 8 (McConnell Dep. 67:22-68:22). CAT does not use the form. Id., Ex. 11

27 (Bittner Dep. 282:8-284). CAT officers do not provide evidence of consent in their incident reports either. Id., Ex. 14 (Geis Dep. 173:1-14).

28

11

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page17 of 32

1 Ex. 56 (10/4/07 Schwitters-McConnell E-Mail).

2

CAT carefully monitored each Section 8 referral to the Housing Authority and prepared a

3 monthly report of its activities. Id., Ex. 47 (C.A.T. Monthly Reports July 2006–June 2008); Id.,

4 Ex. 57 (C.A.T. Cases Referred to Housing Authority). CAT tracked: (1) the number of Section 8

5 vouchers it persuaded the Housing Authority to revoke; and (2) the number of Section 8 families

6 who were forced to move from their homes in Antioch. Id., Ex. 34 (7/12/07 Schwitters-

7 McConnell E-Mail); Id., Ex. 57 (C.A.T. Cases Referred to Housing Auth.). When CAT was

8 successful in obtaining terminations of Section 8 vouchers, it circulated the information within

9 the Police Department and publicized it at community forums. Id., Ex. 58 (10/31/06 Cantando

10 E-Mail).

11

The Housing Authority declined to revoke Section 8 vouchers in more than half of the

12 complaints made by CAT between June 2006 and August 2007. Larkin Decl., Ex. 59 (12/18/07

13 Resp. to NAACP Req. for Rev. and Inv. of Alleged Section 8 Viol.). For African-American

14 Section 8 tenants, CAT referrals were even less successful. From 2006–09, the Housing

15 Authority declined to terminate the vast majority of referrals of African Americans (70.2%),

16 suggesting that the referrals for African Americans were based on weaker evidence than those

17 for other Section 8 voucher holders. Krisberg Decl. at 17: Figure 6. See, e.g., Joseph Decl. ¶¶ 5,

18 7, 11–12 (CAT sought revocation for “unauthorized resident” although officers knew tenant’s

19 brother was a Nevada resident on vacation; revocation proceeding dropped); T. Thomas Decl. ¶¶

20 11–12 (CAT sought revocation for “unauthorized resident” and discontinued garbage service; no

21 revocation); Gray Decl. ¶¶ 30–31 (CAT sought revocation based on unfounded allegations that

22 her minor sons were in trouble with police; no revocation); L. Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 7–8 (CAT

23 sought revocation based on unauthorized resident; no revocation).

24

CAT Threatens Section 8 Landlords – CAT also sent form ‘homeowner’ letters to

25 landlords, informing them of the results of CAT investigations against tenants and threatening

26 that they would be “held responsible” for their tenants’ conduct. See, e.g., Larkin Decl., Ex. 60

27 (7/5/07 APD Landlord Letter); Taylor Decl. ¶ 13 & Exh. A; Gray Decl. ¶ 29 & Exh. A; L.

28 Thomas Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. B; Larkin Decl., Ex. 11 (Bittner Dep. 308:10–309:1). CAT boasted that 12

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page18 of 32

1 these letters “are working better than anticipated. Directly related to move outs and positive

2 feedback from owners.” Id., Ex. 47 (C.A.T. Monthly Reports July 2006–June 2008, at

3 D0014569). Two thirds of the letters that CAT sent to landlords were for Section 8 tenants, with

4 72% going to those with African-American tenants. Krisberg Decl. at 14:22–15:6, Fig. 4; Dang

5 Decl. ¶ 7(e).

6

Both renters and landlords objected to these letters from CAT, some highlighting

7 concerns about racial bias. CAT anticipated and dismissed these concerns. “Some very negative

8 feed back from renters, especially ones receiving section 8 – they don’t like the letters at all!”

9 Larkin Decl., Ex. 47 (July 2006–June 2008 C.A.T. Monthly Reports, at D0014569). After

10 receiving a letter from CAT, plaintiff Karen Coleman’s landlord sent a letter of complaint to

11 Chief Hyde, suggesting that the police harassment of his tenant appeared to be based on “bias.”

12 K. Coleman Decl., ¶ 21 & Ex. E. See also Ong Decl. ¶¶ 5–9 (landlord Mr. Ong was shocked by

13 false allegations). CAT also did not settle for simply sending letters – it also telephoned

14 landlords and sometimes made personal visits to their homes. Larkin Decl., Ex. 13 (Bias Dep.

15 141:11–142:19). CAT officers repeatedly visited plaintiff Scott’s landlord, Riaz Patras, and

16 urged him to evict her. Patras Decl. ¶¶ 5–9. They explicitly warned him about renting to

17 African Americans. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 9.

18

Other Police Officers and Harassment of Section 8 Recipients – The Police

19 Department’s targeting of African-American Section 8 tenants was not solely carried out by

20 CAT officers. Larkin Decl., Ex. 45 (12/14/06 Schwitters E-Mail to APD). Mia White, a former

21 Antioch resident who was not a Section 8 voucher holder, had a conversation with Antioch

22 Police Officer Danielle Sierra, who is not a member of the CAT team:

23

Officer Sierra explained that it was the practice of Antioch police

officers, on a daily basis, to go to where the African-American

24

Section 8 recipients live in order to wear them down and get them

out of town. She said the police officers frequently had to create

25

reports to give to the Housing Authority so that the tenants would

lose the privilege of receiving Section 8 benefits. The officer

26

described an established practice of targeting black Section 8

tenants in order to drive them out of Antioch. 27

M. White Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.

28

13

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page19 of 32

1

Class members will testify that they were targeted or intimidated by the Antioch police

2 officers, in some cases where no referral to the Housing Authority was ever made or a CAT case

3 opened.

4

x Quinetta Gray was told by Antioch police officers that her house would be “red

5

flagged”; she later learned that this meant they would attempt to have her housing

6

benefit revoked. Gray Decl. ¶¶ 26–27.

7

x The Antioch police asked Uzuri Day-Bennett if she was Section 8 and also told

8

her that they were going to put a “red flag” on her house. Day-Bennett Decl. ¶ 7.

9

x Onita Tuggles was subject to racial slurs from Antioch police officer Bloxsom in

10

connection with an incident at a local gas station. She was told to “[g]et the fuck

11

out of here. Get your black ass out of here, because you are not coming to

12

Antioch with this shit.” Larkin Decl., Ex. 64 (Dearmand Tuggles Dep. 41:6–14).

13

Soon after, CAT referred her to the Housing Authority for termination of her

14

Section 8 voucher. Id., Ex. 63 (Tuggles Decl.).

15

x Since 2006, Nathaniel Kearns, an African-American Section 8 recipient, has been

16

stopped and questioned by the Antioch police eight or nine times. The police

17

have never found any wrongdoing on his part. Kearns Decl. ¶ ¶ 5–11, 14–15.

18

x Rebecca Lewis was moving into her home in June 2007 when she was confronted

19

by officers who demanded to see identification and proof that she was entitled to

20

occupy the home. Lewis Decl. ¶ 4.

21

x After CAT was unsuccessful in obtaining a revocation of Lola Thomas’ Section 8

22

voucher, she repeatedly saw patrol cars outside her home apparently monitoring

23

her. L. Thomas Decl. ¶ 10–11; see also Payne Decl. ¶ 14; Williams Decl. ¶ 16;

24

Alexander Decl. ¶ 7.

25

x There were no complaints or calls for service to the home of Saieda Evans, but

26

after her 12-year-old daughter was disciplined at school for a fight, the police

27

came to Evans’ home and referred her to the Housing Authority for revocation.

28

Evans Decl. ¶¶ 12–15.

14

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page20 of 32

1

x Che Alexander’s family was repeatedly subject to police scrutiny, search and

2

questioning yet when he received racially threatening letters, he did not receive

3

adequate police response or protection. Alexander Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.

4

x Rosalind Threets was wrongly accused of perpetrating a hit-and-run, threatened,

5

subject to a home search and humiliated by the police. Threets Decl. ¶¶ 4–9.

6

x Antioch police refused to provide protection to Tamula Murphy who was

7

repeatedly subject to harassment from the property manager of her rental home.

8

Murphy Decl. ¶¶ 6–13.

9

x Antioch police threatened to arrest the minor sons of Nicole Mays without cause

10

and referred to “how people with Section 8 are.” Mays Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.

11

Antioch’s Failure to Respond to Concerns of Race Bias

12

Within months of launching CAT, community members raised concerns about biased

13 enforcement against minorities and Section 8 recipients. Larkin Decl., Ex. 47 (July 2006–June

14 2008 C.A.T. Monthly Reports); Id., Ex. 8 (McConnell Dep., 156:3–157:6). In 2007, NAACP

15 members also raised concerns to the City Council about CAT targeting. Id., Ex. 3 (Jakel Dep.

16 87:19–88:7); Glasper Decl. ¶¶ 8–10. Several of the named plaintiffs and other Section 8

17 recipients expressed their concerns about CAT to the City Council as well. Larkin Decl., Ex. 66

18 (9/25/2007 City Council Mtg. Minutes).

19

On December 18, 2007, Public Advocates and Bay Area Legal Aid released a report

20 which documented the racial disparities in CAT practices and it was presented to the City

21 Council at its meeting the same day. Larkin Decl., Ex. 61 (Public Advocates/Bay Area Legal

22 Aid Rept.); Dang Decl. ¶ 10(c). The report was based on months of investigation and research,

23 relying on responses to Public Records Act requests to the city and the Housing Authority. It

24 concluded that “the practices of CAT disproportionately affect African-American families” and

25 that “the CAT has singled out African-American families within the Section 8 population in an

26 attempt to terminate their housing assistance.” The city took no steps to investigate these

27 charges or verify the accuracy of the statistics. Larkin Decl., Ex. 3 (Jakel Dep. 79:2–9); Id., Ex.

28 4 (Freitas Dep. 158:23–161:8); Id., Ex. 15 (Kalinowski Dep. 105:3–107:6). 15

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page21 of 32

1

2

Statistical Evidence of Adverse Impact on African-American Section 8 Recipients

3

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Krisberg, analyzed the available data regarding conduct of CAT.

4 He concluded that “the Antioch Police Department, through its Community Action Team (CAT),

5 engages in practices that have a disproportionate impact on Section 8 households and African6 American Section 8 voucher holders.” Krisberg Decl. at 1:7–9.9 His findings included the

7 following:

8

Focus on Section 8: Data shows that Section 8 households were the main focus of the

9 CAT team, despite the fact that they constituted only a small portion of the Antioch population.

10 In the first year of CAT operation, 2006, only 4.7% of the households in Antioch were Section 8,

11 yet they were 58% of CAT locations. Among Antioch’s renters, 18.6% were Section 8, yet they

12 were 76.7% of CAT rental targets. Krisberg Decl. at 8:1–6. The same pattern holds true for the

13 entire period of 2006–2009: CAT targeted Section 8 at many times the rate of their presence in

14 the population. The differences are highly significant statistically. Id. at 9:18–11:4, Fig. 1c. In

15 addition, Section 8 landlords were much more likely to get warning letters from CAT than non-

16 Section 8 landlords. Id. at 14:20–15:6, Fig. 4.

17

Impact on African Americans: Although African Americans represent a small percentage

18 of Antioch residents, they hold more than half of the Section 8 vouchers in the city (55.8%).

19 Accordingly, CAT’s targeting of Section 8 locations inevitably means that there will be a

20 disproportionate adverse impact on African Americans. Krisberg Decl. at 11:13–17, Figure 2a.

21 Yet CAT targeted African Americans to an even greater degree than their presence in the Section

22 8 population: between 2006–2009, 68.2% of the Section 8 CAT locations were African-

23 American households. Id. at 14:1–2. CAT also referred African Americans to the Housing

24 Authority and sent threatening letters to the landlords of Section 8 households, at statistically

25

9
26

CAT only kept complete records regarding locations it ultimately designated as CAT or

“problem” locations. The only comprehensive data on the race of CAT targets is limited to

27 Section 8 locations. Dr. Krisberg’s analyses are therefore limited to CAT locations. Krisberg Decl. at 6: 4-8 n.1.

28 16

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page22 of 32

1 disproportionate rates. Id. at 15:1–4, 16: 3–5.

2

Named Plaintiffs’ Claims

3

The experiences of each of the named plaintiffs illustrate the harassing investigatory

4 tactics used to target African-American Section 8 voucher holders.

5

Priscilla Bunton – CAT received two noise complaints about Bunton’s teenager playing

6 basketball after 7:00 p.m. Bunton Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8. CAT officers visited her home and, without a

7 warrant or her consent, thoroughly searched her home, including drawers and closets. Id. at ¶ 6.

8 Although the police concluded that Bunton was fully cooperative, CAT officers submitted an

9 offense report to the Housing Authority the very next day because they suspected that Bunton

10 had an unauthorized resident. The Housing Authority initially terminated her voucher, but

11 eventually reinstated it. Id. at ¶ 13.

12

Santeya Williams – Williams made a call for assistance in connection with an incident of

13 domestic violence. Williams Decl. ¶ 9. When the regular patrol officers learned that she was on

14 Section 8, they notified CAT. The following day, CAT officers came to her home in search of a

15 possible unauthorized resident or other violation. Without her consent, they conducted a search

16 of her home and used the fruits of the search to seek revocation of her Section 8 benefits. Id. at

17 ¶¶ 10–13. The Housing Authority hearing officer found the allegations unsupported and

18 declined to terminate her Section 8 benefits. Id. at ¶ 15.

19

Mary Scott – On January 16, 2007, CAT officers forcibly entered and conducted an

20 unauthorized search of Scott’s home, looking for an allegedly unauthorized resident. Two days

21 later, CAT submitted a letter to the Housing Authority seeking revocation of her benefits. Scott

22 Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12. The Housing Authority had initially terminated her benefits, but later rescinded

23 its decision. Id. at ¶ 15. CAT also wrote and called her landlord, encouraging him to evict her.

24 Patras Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.

25

Karen Coleman – CAT officers conducted an intrusive and unreasonable search of

26 Coleman’s home, hoping to prove that her husband, Thomas, was an unauthorized resident. K.

27 Coleman Decl ¶¶ 15–19; T. Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 5–7. They returned on two additional occasions

28 and also went to his place of employment. K. Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 22–23; T. Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 8– 17

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page23 of 32

1 9. CAT sent a letter to the Housing Authority suggesting she had an unauthorized resident.

2 Larkin Decl., Ex. 62 (6/27/07 Bittner Letter to Z. McNab). CAT contacted Coleman’s landlord,

3 attempting unsuccessfully to obtain her eviction. K. Coleman Decl. ¶ 21 & Ex. D. Her landlord

4 complained to police that their harassment of Ms. Coleman was biased. Id. at Ex. E.

5

Alyce Payne – Plaintiff Payne sought police assistance in connection with incidents of

6 domestic violence. CAT officers used those opportunities to collect evidence against her to

7 support revocation of her Section 8 voucher, without disclosing to the Housing Authority that the

8 calls for service were for domestic violence. When it learned the truth, the Housing Authority

9 declined to terminate Payne. Payne Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10, 11, 13 & Ex. D.

10

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

11

Plaintiffs allege three alternative legal theories on behalf of the class which, if proven,

12 would establish violations of multiple federal and state laws. 10

13

Adverse Impact – Plaintiffs allege that the defendant’s practice of targeting Section 8

14 households has an adverse impact on African Americans. Under this theory, first developed in

15 Title VII cases, statistical evidence that a policy, neutral on its face, has an adverse impact upon

16 a protected class will establish a prima facie case. No proof of discriminatory intent is required 17 to prevail on this claim. Pfaff v. HUD, 88 F.3d 739, 745–6 (9th Cir. 1996).11 Adverse racial

18 impact would constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3617, because

19 defendant coerced, intimidated, threatened or interfered with class members’ exercise and

20 enjoyment of their rental homes. The Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of

21 Modesto, 2009 WL 3208728, at *18 (9th Cir, October 8, 2009); Pfaff, 88 F.3d 739. The same

22 adverse impact evidence may be used to prove defendant’s liability for race discrimination under

23 the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12955(d), (g) & (k),

24

10
25

The named plaintiffs also allege, individually, that defendant inflicted emotional distress,

either intentionally or negligently, and interfered with their contractual relationships. First

26

Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 131–41. 11 If plaintiffs establish adverse impact, the burden shifts to defendant to rebut the impact by

27 showing that its policy or practice was justified by a legally sufficient, nondiscriminatory reason. Pfaff, 88 F. 3d at 746-47.

28

18

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page24 of 32

1 §12955.7, 12955.8(b); Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1418–23

2 (2007). Finally, the city’s conduct violates Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135, which prohibits racial

3 discrimination by recipients of state funding. That statute’s implementing regulations include a

4 proscription against adverse impact, for which parties may state a claim. Cal. Gov’t Code

5 § 11139; 22 Cal. Admin Code 98101(i)(1); Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, 611 F. Supp.

6 2d 994, 1041–42 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

7

Source of Income Discrimination – Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated FEHA by

8 discriminating against class members on the basis of their source of income, Section 8 housing

9 assistance. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955(d),(g) & (k); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955 (p)(1)

10 (defining “source of income”). To succeed on this claim, plaintiffs need not show that there was

11 any racial discrimination, intentional or otherwise, only that defendant’s practices had the intent

12 or effect of discriminating based upon the class member’s source of income.

13

Intentional Discrimination – Finally, plaintiffs allege that defendant has engaged in a

14 pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against African-American class members and

15 carried out unreasonable and unlawful searches of their homes. Gross statistical disparities

16 alone, or in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, may raise an inference of intent. The

17 Comm. Concerning Comty. Improvement, 2009 WL 3208728 at *7 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2009);

18 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp, 429 U.S. 252, 264–66 (1977).

19

Intentional discrimination violates the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Employment and

20 Housing Act and Government Code § 11135. Plaintiffs also allege liability under 42 U.S.C.

21 § 1983 for violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal

22 Protection Clause and the Fourth Amendment. These practices also violate Article I, §§ 7 & 13

23 of the California Constitution.

24

Remedies – Defendant’s conduct is continuing and is likely to recur absent an injunctive

25 order. In addition to supporting declaratory and injunctive relief, these claims expose defendant

26 to statutory damages. Plaintiffs seek class damages only under California’s Bane Act, Cal Civ.

27 Code § 52.1, which authorizes statutory minimum damages of $4,000 per incident in which

28 defendant interfered, through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their statutory or 19

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page25 of 32

1 constitutional rights. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a), 52.1(b).

2

LEGAL ARGUMENT

3

This Court must apply a “rigorous analysis” to determine if the evidence satisfies each of

4 the Rule 23 class certification requirements. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon,

5 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). “Although some inquiry into the substance of a case may be

6 necessary to ascertain satisfaction of the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a),

7 it is improper to advance a decision on the merits to the class certification stage.” Staton v.

8 Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 954 (9th Cir. 2003); see Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178

9 (1974); Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 345

10 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The district court is nonetheless “at liberty to consider evidence which goes to

11 the requirements of Rule 23 even though the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of

12 the case.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir. 1992).

13

District courts in this and other circuits have frequently certified class actions to

14 challenge allegedly illegal law enforcement. See, e.g., Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 2009 WL

15 2590628 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2009) (police confiscation and destruction of the property of

16 homeless individuals); Kincaid v. City of Fresno, 244 F.R.D. 597 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (same);

17 Moyle v. County of Contra Costa, 2007 WL 4287315 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2007) (juvenile strip

18 search policy); Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Public Safety, 2006 WL 2168637, at *4 (D. Ariz. July

19 31, 2006) (targeting of minority drivers in conducting traffic stops and searches); Hickey v. City

20 of Seattle, 236 F.R.D. 659 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (mass arrests at WTO demonstrations); Ledford v.

21 City of Highland Park, 2000 WL 1053967 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2000) (racial profiling by police).

22 Cf. Int’l Molders & Allied Workers’ Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 102 F.R.D. 457 (N.D. Cal.

23 1983) (Hispanics targeted for immigration raids).

24

A. Proposed Class Definition

25

Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class defined as follows:

26

all African-Americans who have held, currently hold, may hold, or

are erroneously regarded by the City and officers of the Antioch

27

Police Department as holding, Section 8 housing vouchers, and all

members of their households, who reside, have resided or will

28

reside, in the City Antioch.

20

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page26 of 32

1 First Amended Complaint, ¶ 17.

2

B. All Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied

3

Plaintiffs meet each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality,

4 typicality and adequacy of representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a).

5

1. The Proposed Class is Sufficiently Numerous

6

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the proposed class be so numerous that “joinder of all

7 members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a)(1). There is no need “to state the exact

8 number of potential class members, nor is a specific number of class members required for

9 numerosity.” Californians for Disability Rights v. Cal. Dep’t of Transportation, 249 F.R.D. 334,

10 347 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Housing Authority data indicates that for the period of 2006 – 2009, there

11 were 1,061 African-American Section 8 households in Antioch. (Dang Decl. ¶ 5(b), Krisberg

12 Decl. at 12:13–15). As a “household” typically includes more than one family member, the class

13 is likely to be significantly larger than that figure. This number plainly satisfies the numerosity

14 requirement. Californians for Disability Rights, 249 F.R.D. at 346.

15

2. The Class Shares Common Questions of Law and Fact

16

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law and fact common to the class.”

17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality is a “flexible standard” that should be “construed

18 permissively.” Parra v. Bashas’ Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2009 WL

19 160657 (Jan. 26, 2009). “Where the circumstances of each particular class member vary but

20 retain a common core of factual or legal issues with the rest of the class, commonality exists.” Id.

21 at 978–79.

22

At class certification, the role of the court is to ascertain whether there exist questions of

23 law or fact common to the class, not to answer those questions. See Hnot v. Willis Group

24 Holding, 241 F.R.D. 204, 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Plaintiffs have offered extensive evidence that

25 CAT targeted Section 8 families, in general, and African-American Section 8 recipients, in

26 particular, with a significant adverse impact upon African Americans. This targeting reflects a

27 pattern or practice of discrimination. While defendant denies the existence of this pattern and

28 practice, plaintiffs have shown that common questions plainly exist. 21

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page27 of 32

1

Common questions of fact presented by this case include: (1) whether defendant and its

2 CAT unit target Section 8 recipients; (2) whether the targeting of Section 8 households has an

3 adverse impact upon African Americans; (3) whether defendant and its CAT unit have engaged

4 in a pattern or practice of intentionally targeting African-American Section 8 recipients; (4)

5 whether defendant and its CAT unit conducted illegal home searches of Section 8 recipients,

6 particularly those who are African-American; (5) whether defendant and its CAT unit make or

7 have made unfounded referrals, including domestic violence incidents, to the Housing Authority

8 for Section 8 voucher recipients, particularly those who are African-American; (6) whether

9 defendant and its CAT unit disproportionately contact Section 8 landlords, particularly those

10 with African-American tenants, and threaten them with liability for the conduct of their tenants;

11 and (7) whether defendant can prove a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its policy and

12 practice of targeting Section 8 and African-American households, and if so, whether there are

13 less discriminatory alternatives available.

14

Common questions of law include whether defendant’s conduct constitutes actionable

15 discrimination under the adverse impact or intentional discrimination theories or violates

16 FEHA’s “source of income” provision, whether injunctive relief is warranted, and whether

17 defendant is liable for class statutory damages.

18

3. The Named Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical

19

Like commonality, the typicality standard is “permissive,” and requires only that the

20 named representatives’ claims be “reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members[,]

21 . . . they need not be substantially identical.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 957. It suffices that the class

22 representatives are “part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as

23 the class members.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982)

24 (internal quotation marks omitted). Typicality and commonality tend to merge. Id. at 157 n.13.

25

Here, the named plaintiffs are all African-American Antioch residents who receive

26 Section 8 vouchers. Like the class, they have been subject to investigation and targeting by the

27 CAT team since 2006 by means of the techniques set forth in the CAT Flow Chart. Larkin

28 Decl., Ex. 11 (Bittner Dep. 175:6 – 177:23). For each of them, CAT attempted to get her Section 22

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page28 of 32

1 8 voucher revoked through a referral to the Housing Authority. CAT officers contacted each of

2 their landlords in writing, using the same form letter, threatening that they would be held liable

3 for the actions of their tenants. Id., Ex. 11 (Bittner Dep. 306:16–307:7). With the exception of

4 Ms. Payne, the named plaintiffs have each been subject to overbroad or illegal police searches.

5 Williams Decl. ¶¶ 6–11; Bunton Decl. ¶¶ 5–13; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 8–15; K. Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 15–

6 24. As such, their claims are typical of those of the class.

7

4. The Named Plaintiffs are Adequate Class Representatives

8

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representatives “will fairly and adequately protect the

9 interests of the class.” The rule is satisfied where, as here, the representatives’ claims are

10 sufficiently interrelated, and not antagonistic, to the claims of the class. Hanlon v. Chrysler

11 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). There is no antagonism between the named

12 plaintiffs’ claims and those of the class they seek to represent, and their interests are the same.

13 The named plaintiffs each affirm their willingness to undertake the responsibilities of serving as

14 class representatives. Williams Decl. ¶ 19; Bunton Decl. ¶ 15; Scott Decl. ¶ 22; K. Coleman

15 Decl. ¶ 26; Payne Decl. ¶ 21.

16

C. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b)

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires that a proposed class must also meet the

18 definition of one of the three Rule 23(b) categories.

19

1. The Court Should Certify the Class Under Rule 23(b)(2)

20

Rule 23(b)(2) is an appropriate basis for certification when the defendant “has acted or

21 refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,” thereby making appropriate final

22 injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Fed. R.

23 Civ. P. 23(b)(2). “Civil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class-based

24 discrimination are prime examples” of Rule 23(b)(2) classes. Amchem Products, Inc. v.

25 Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997); Barefield v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 1988 WL 188433 at *2

26 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 1988). Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate here because plaintiffs

27 challenge defendant’s actions with respect to the class as a whole. They seek declaratory and

28 injunctive relief in order to change the police practices that they allege have resulted in 23

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page29 of 32

1 discrimination against themselves and the class.

2

In addition to plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, they seek statutory minimum

3 damages under the Bane Act for the class. A claim for statutory damages does not preclude

4 certification under Rule 23(b)(2) if injunctive relief is the predominant form of relief sought.

5 Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.,158 F.R.D. 439, 450–52 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (civil

6 rights class action certified seeking injunctive relief and statutory damages under (b)(2)). In

7 determining whether injunctive relief is the predominant relief sought, district courts must

8 examine the “specific facts and circumstances of each case” and the “intent of the plaintiffs in

9 bringing the suit.” Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 950 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, plaintiffs seek

10 substantial injunctive relief. First Amended Complaint ¶ 148. Moreover, the plaintiffs each

11 attest that their primary goal in bringing the litigation is to change the practices of the Antioch

12 Police Department. Williams Decl. ¶ 20; Bunton Decl. ¶ 15; Scott Decl. ¶ 21; K. Coleman Decl.

13 ¶ 25; Payne Decl. ¶ 20. The class does not seek emotional distress damages or other remedies

14 that turn on the subjective feelings of class members, or punitive damages; rather, the only

15 monetary relief sought is statutory damages that may be awarded without individualized proof of 16 damages. Botosan v. Paul McNalley Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 835 (9th Cir 2000).12

17

2. Alternatively, the Court Could Certify the Class under Rule 23(b)(3)

or Use Hybrid Certification 18

The case also satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), which are that “questions of

19

law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual

20

members,” and class resolution must be “superior to other available methods for fairly and

21

efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Here, plaintiffs have

22

identified numerous common questions and, by requesting only statutory damages for the class,

23

have removed concerns about complex individual damage determinations. Questions about each

24

class members’ prior history will not preclude certification under Rule 23(b)(3) either. Moyle,

25

12
26

The court may, in its discretion, afford class members the opportunity to opt-out of the

class. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) gives the court the discretion to make such an order

27 to ensure that the due process rights of the class members are preserved. Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 951 n.16 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs request that the court do so.

28 24

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page30 of 32

1 2007 WL 4287315. Finally, class resolution is the superior means of resolving the claims

2 because the class members, poor and struggling to raise families, are unlikely to litigate these

3 claims individually. See Lehr, 2009 WL 2590628.

4

As a third option, the Court could certify this case as a Rule 23(b)(2) class for all

5 purposes except for statutory damages, which it could certify under (b)(3), a practice known as

6 the “hybrid” approach. Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter RR, 267 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir.

7 2001); Mathers v. Northshore Mining Co., 217 F.R.D. 474, 487 (D. Minn. 2003); Barefield v.

8 Chevron, 1988 WL 188433 at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 1988).

9

D. Appointment of Class Counsel

10

Rule 23(g) governs the standards and framework for the selection of class counsel for a

11 certified class. The rule articulates four criteria that the district court must consider in evaluating

12 the adequacy of proposed counsel: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating

13 potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex

14 litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable

15 law; and (4) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16 23(g)(1)(A)(i). The Court is also free to consider any other matter and “[n]o single factor should

17 necessarily be determinative in a given case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(ii); see Advisory

18 Committee’s note.

19

Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint the Impact Fund and Bingham McCutchen LLP as co-

20 lead class counsel, with the ACLU of Northern California, Public Advocates, Inc., the Lawyers’

21 Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, and Haywood Gilliam of Covington & Burling LLP

22 as class co-counsel to represent the plaintiff class. Information relevant to the Rule 23(g) criteria

23 is set forth in the declaration of lead counsel, Brad Seligman.

24

CONCLUSION

25

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should certify the requested class.

26

27

28 25

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page31 of 32

1 DATED: October 26, 2009 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IMPACT FUND

By:

/s/ Jocelyn D. Larkin

Jocelyn D. Larkin

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

26

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document90 Filed10/26/09 Page32 of 32

1 Additional Counsel:

2 Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights

3

of the San Francisco Bay Area OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)

4

osellstrom@lccr.com KENDRA FOX-DAVIS (SBN 248757)

5

131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105

6

Telephone: 415.543.9444 Facsimile: 415.543.0296

7 Covington & Burling LLP

8

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN 172732) hgilliam@cov.com

9

One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111

10

Telephone: 415.591.6000 Facsimile: 415.591.6091

11 American Civil Liberties Union

12

Foundation of Northern California ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957)

13

aschlosser@aclunc.org ANDRE I. SEGURA (SBN 247681)

14

39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111

15

Telephone: 415.621.2493 Facsimile: 415.255.8437

16 Public Advocates, Inc.

17

RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN 39619) Rmarcantonio@publicadvocates.org

18

SAMUEL TEPPERMAN-GELFANT (SBN 240944)

19

131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105

20

Telephone: 415.431.7430 Facsimile: 415.431.1048

21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SANTEYA DANYELL

22

WILLIAMS, MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON,

23 and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE.

24

25

26

27

28 27

 
 Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page1 of 10

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5

6 WILLIAMS, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

vs.

9 CITY OF ANTIOCH,

10

Defendant.

Case No: C 08-02301 SBA
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [Docket No. 173]

11

12

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the

13 Pleadings, which seeks to dismiss named Plaintiff Bunton and the class’s claims for statutory

14 damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, on the ground that Bunton and the class have failed to

15 comply with the Government Tort Claims Act. (Docket No. 173.) Having read and

16 considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court

17 hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. The Court, in its discretion, finds

18 this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b).

19 I. BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant the City of Antioch (“City” or

21 “Defendant”) on behalf of a class of all African-Americans who have held, currently hold, may

22 hold, or are erroneously regarded by the City and officers of the Antioch Police Department as

23 holding, Section 8 housing vouchers, and all members of their households, who reside, have

24 resided or will reside, in the City Antioch. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 17.) 25 Plaintiffs allege that the City intentionally discriminates against African-American Section 8 26 households on the basis of race and/or source of income, and has pursued policies and practices 27 that have an unjustified adverse impact on them. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs bring claims against the 28 City under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and related

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page2 of 10

1 state laws. Additionally, the five named Plaintiffs – Priscilla Bunton, Santeya Williams, Mary

2 Scott, Karen Coleman, and Alyce Payne – individually bring common law tort claims. With

3 respect to remedies, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory minimum

4 damages for the class under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, and individual damages and Section 52.1

5 statutory damages for the named Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 148.)

6

In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “Plaintiffs Williams, Scott, Coleman, and Payne

7 timely served notices of claims for money damages against the City of Antioch” for the

8 conduct described in the complaint “pursuant to California Government Code §§ 910-886.6,”

9 and that Defendant rejected Plaintiffs’ claims. (FAC, ¶ 99.) Plaintiffs further state that “[e]ach

10 notice alleged that the conduct was part of an illegal policy and practice of discrimination

11 targeting African-Americans who participate in the Section 8 Voucher Program in Antioch.

12 All damage claims made in this action are incidental to and secondary to the injunctive relief

13 claims.” (Id.)

14

Defendant has now moved, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and (h)(2)(B), for judgment on

15 the pleadings. By its motion, Defendant seeks to dismiss named Plaintiff Bunton and the

16 class’s claims for statutory damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, on the ground that Bunton

17 and the class have failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act. Defendant has also

18 asked the Court to take judicial notice of the tort claim notices filed with the City by Plaintiffs

19 Williams, Scott, Coleman, and Payne, on the grounds that they are official public records that

20 are not subject to reasonable dispute. (Docket No. 175, Exs. B1-B4.) Plaintiffs have not 21 indicated that they oppose that request.1

22

23

24

25

26

27

1 Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Defendant does not presently challenge whether Plaintiffs Williams, Scott, Coleman, and Payne complied with the

28 Government Tort Claims Act.

- 2 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page3 of 10

1 II. DISCUSSION

2

A. LEGAL STANDARDS

3

1. Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

4

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and (h)(2)(B), a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

5 claim may be made in a motion for judgment on the pleadings after an answer has been filed.

6 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion,

7 the Court “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the

8 light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.

9 2009). “A judgment on the pleadings is proper if, taking all of [plaintiff]’s allegations in its

10 pleadings as true, [defendant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Compton Unified

11 School Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 2010).

12

“[T]he same standard of review applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its Rule

13 12(c) analog,” because the motions are “functionally identical.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine,

14 Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, a Rule 12(c) motion may be based on either:

15 (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal

16 claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff need

17 allege “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic

18 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A court may also consider, on a Rule 12(c)

19 motion, “facts that ‘are contained in materials of which the court may take judicial notice.’”

20 Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 at n. 18 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting

21 Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994)).

22

“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the

23 face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled

24 to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d

25 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989).

26

2. California Civil Code § 52.1 (“the Bane Act”)

27

By their eighth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has violated Cal. Civ.

28 Code § 52.1 (“the Bane Act”). Section 52.1 authorizes a claim for relief “against anyone who

- 3 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page4 of 10

1 interferes, or tries to do so, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with an individual’s exercise

2 or enjoyment of rights secured by federal or state law.” Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal.4th 329,

3 331 (1998). The named Plaintiffs and the class also seek actual damages, including at least

4 minimum damages of $4,000 for each offense, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). (FAC, ¶

5 130.) The named Plaintiffs further seek treble damages. (Id.) Section 52(a) allows the

6 following recovery for Bane Act violations: “for each and every offense for the actual damages

7 … up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four

8 thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees ….”

9

3. California Government Code § 945.4 (Claim Presentation

10

Requirement of the Government Tort Claims Act)

11

Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4 provides that “no suit for money or damages may be brought

12 against a public entity … until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity

13 and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board

14 ….” “Unless a specific exception applies, ‘[a] suit for ‘money or damages’ includes all actions

15 where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless whether the action is founded in ‘tort,

16 contract or some other theory.’’” Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco, 145

17 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1152 (2006) (citations omitted). “The claim filing requirement has been

18 held applicable to claims arising out of negligence, nuisance, breach of statutory duties,

19 intentional wrongs and contract.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Government Code section 905

20 lists several exceptions to the general rule that public entities must be provided notice of all

21 claims for money or damages.” Id. (quotations omitted). “[C]laims for damages for violations

22 of section 51 and 52.1 are not among them.” Gatto v. County of Sonoma, 98 Cal.App.4th 744,

23 763 (2002) (finding notice provision applies to a civil action for damages under Cal. Civ. Code

24 § 52.1).

25

The purpose of Section 945.4 is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to

26 enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense

27 of litigation.” Stockett v. Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins.

28 Authority, 34 Cal.4th 441, 446 (2004) (internal quotations omitted). Consequently, a claim

- 4 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page5 of 10

1 need not contain the detail and specificity required of a pleading, but need only “fairly describe

2 what [the] entity is alleged to have done.” Id.

3

With respect to class actions, a class claim may satisfy the claim presentation

4 requirement of Section 945.4. City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447, 457 (1974);

5 County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 353, 362 (2008). “[T]o satisfy the

6 claims statutes, the class claim must provide the name, address, and other specified information

7 concerning the representative plaintiff and then sufficient information to identify and make 8 ascertainable the class itself.”2 San Jose, 12 Cal.3d at 457 (emphasis in original). The

9 sufficiency of the identifying information for the class is measured by a “substantial

10 compliance test.” Id. The substantial compliance test considers whether there is “sufficient

11 information disclosed on the face of the filed claim to reasonably enable the public entity to

12 make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of

13 a lawsuit[.]” Id. at 456; see also Connelly v. County of Fresno, 146 Cal.App.4th 29, 40 (2006)

14 (“[I]n considering whether a claim substantially complies with the Government Tort Claims

15 Act, the claim should be viewed in its entirety and a determination made as to whether the

16 claim is susceptible to an interpretation that reasonably enables the public entity to make an

17 adequate investigation.”).

18

The claim presentation requirement does not apply to nonpecuniary actions, such as

19 those seeking injunctive, specific, or declaratory relief. Gatto, 98 Cal.App.4th at 762. In some

20 situations, “a claimant may seek both damages and nonmonetary relief from a public entity in

21 the same action, and thus invoke a basis of recovery which is not within the purview of the Tort

22 Claims Act ….” Id. at 763. “[A]n action for specific relief does not lose its exempt status 23 solely because incidental money damages are sought.” Id. However, “[t]he claims filing 24 requirement remains applicable to actions in which money damages are not incidental or 25 ancillary to any specific relief that is also sought, but the primary purpose of the action.” Id.

26

27

2 Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the information provided in the

28 notices concerning the named Plaintiffs.

- 5 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page6 of 10

1

B. ANALYSIS

2

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion on two grounds. First, they assert that this suit is

3 not subject to the Government Tort Claims Act because Plaintiffs’ primary purpose is to obtain

4 injunctive and declaratory relief. Second, Plaintiffs argue that even if this suit were subject to

5 the Government Tort Claims Act, the tort claim notices filed by the four named Plaintiffs are

6 sufficient to satisfy the claim presentation requirement on behalf of the class (and on behalf of

7 class member Bunton). Neither of Plaintiffs’ arguments has merit, as set forth in detail below.

8

1. The Government Tort Claims Act Applies

9

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, violations of the Fair Housing Act and

10 related state law, violations of their constitutional rights under Section 1983, and violations of

11 the Bane Act. Plaintiffs seek only statutory damages in connection with their Bane Act claim,

12 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). (FAC, ¶ 28.) Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs assert that the

13 claim presentation requirement does not apply to their Bane Act claim because the primary

14 purpose of this action is to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant’s

15 discriminatory policies.

16

In that regard, Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco, 145 Cal.App.4th 1139

17 (2006) is instructive. There, the plaintiff, a peace officer, brought claims against his employer

18 the City and County of San Francisco in connection with its investigations into the plaintiff’s

19 discharge of his weapon. The plaintiff alleged violations of his constitutional rights under

20 Section 1983, violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violations of

21 the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”). Id. at 1148. With his

22 POBRA claim, the plaintiff sought injunctive relief, back pay, general damages, civil penalties

23 provided for in the statute, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest. Id. at 1149, 1164. The

24 trial court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to the plaintiff’s

25 POBRA claim, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice

26 requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act.

27

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the notice requirements did not apply because he

28 sought injunctive relief in connection with this POBRA claim, and that his claim for damages

- 6 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page7 of 10

1 was “incidental” to the primary injunctive relief sought. Id. at 1147. The appeals court

2 rejected that argument, explaining “[w]hile there appears to be a split of authority over whether

3 money damages that may be ‘incidental’ to a claim for equitable relief are subject to the claim

4 filing requirement of the Government Claims Act, we are aware of no case that holds that civil

5 penalties of the type sought here ($25,000 per incident) and actual damages that are the

6 primary relief sought and not merely ‘incidental’ to injunctive or other extraordinary relief, do 7 not constitute a claim for ‘money or damages’ in the first instance.” Id. at 1163-1164.3

8

That same rational applies here to Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim with even greater force.

9 Again, the sole remedy Plaintiffs seek with their Bane Act claim is damages, including at least

10 minimum damages of $4,000 for each offense, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). (FAC, ¶

11 130.) By Plaintiffs’ own estimate, the proposed class comprises approximately 1,000

12 members, which would lead to statutory minimum damage award of $4 million for the class.

13 (See Docket No. 90, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.) Additionally, the named

14 Plaintiffs seek up to treble their actual damages. Plaintiffs have cited no authority finding such

15 a damage amount to be “ancillary” or “incidental.” Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to shift the

16 focus away from that significant damage amount by asserting that the primary purpose of this

17 action, as a whole, is to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. The primary cases that

18 Plaintiffs rely on as finding damage claims incidental to an action seeking primarily injunctive

19 relief – namely, Gibson v. County of Riverside, 181 F.Supp.2d 1057 (D.C. Cal. 2002) and

20 Indep. Hous. Servs. of San Francisco v. Fillmore Center Assoc., 840 F.Supp. 1328 (N. D. Cal.

21 1993) – are not instructive, as they fail to indicate the amount of damages sought by plaintiffs

22 in those actions. Nor do those cases provide any guidance as to what should be considered

23 “ancillary” or “incidental” damages.

24

Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim is subject to the claim

25

26

3 The contrary authority mentioned by the Lozada court includes TrafficSchoolOnline, Inc. v. Clarke, 112 Cal.App.4th 736 (2003) and CSEA v. Governing Board, 124 Cal.App.4th

27

574 (2004), which the Lozada court described as “both rejecting view that monetary relief, even if ‘incidental’ to injunctive or declaratory relief, is not an action for money or damages

28 under sections 945.4 and 905.” Lozada, 145 Cal.App.4th at 1164.

- 7 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page8 of 10

1 presentation requirement of the Government Tort Claims Act.

2

2. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Substantial Compliance with the Claims

3

Presentation Requirement on Behalf of the Class

4

Plaintiffs argue that even if their Bane Act claim were subject to the Government Tort

5 Claims Act, the claim notices of the four named Plaintiffs meet the “substantial compliance”

6 test for notice of a class claim by identifying a class of African-American residents of Antioch

7 who receive Section 8 benefits. Specifically, the notices assert that the actions of Antioch

8 police officers against the named Plaintiffs “were part of the Department’s illegal policy and

9 practice of discriminatory targeting of African-American families like mine who participate in

10 the federal Section 8 housing subsidy programs in Antioch.” (RJN, Exs. B1-B4.) Again, “in

11 considering whether a claim substantially complies with the Government Tort Claims Act, the

12 claim should be viewed in its entirety and a determination made as to whether the claim is

13 susceptible to an interpretation that reasonably enables the public entity to make an adequate

14 investigation.” Connelly, 146 Cal.App.4th at 40.

15

In this case, Plaintiffs rely on California School Employees Ass’n v. Tustin Unified

16 School Dist., 148 Cal.App.4th 510 (2007) to support their argument that the named Plaintiffs’

17 notices substantially complied with the notice requirements for a class claim. There, the court

18 found that a claim notice filed by a labor union on behalf of one member satisfied the notice

19 requirements for claims brought by other members of union’s bargaining unit. Id. at 524. That

20 case is distinguishable. There, the claim was filed by the labor union (CSEA), not by the

21 individual plaintiff, and alleged “[t]he losses incurred by CSEA are the unknown losses which

22 will be incurred by members of its bargaining unit who will not be paid ... because of the

23 District’s failure to follow Education Code requirements.” Id. (emphasis added). The court

24 found that “CSEA’s claim thereby put the School District on notice the CSEA was challenging

25 the School District’s practice as applied in the present to [plaintiff], and in the future to

26 similarly situated employees.” Id.

27

Unlike California School Employees Ass’n, here, the four notices were filed by the

28 named Plaintiffs as individuals. The notices were not filed by a group or organization on

- 8 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page9 of 10

1 behalf of the named Plaintiffs. In addition, those notices refer only to harm that the named

2 Plaintiffs alleged to have suffered individually. Specifically, each notice describes the named

3 Plaintiff’s specific interactions with the Antioch officers, the alleged illegality of the officers’

4 conduct, and the resulting personal injury and constitutional violations suffered by the named

5 Plaintiff. (See e.g., RJN, Ex. B1: “My family and I suffered personal injury, emotional

6 distress, injury to our reputation, property damage, and other losses, including per se damages

7 based on the deprivation of our civil and constitutional rights, in an amount exceeding

8 $25,000.”) (nearly identical language is also found in Exs. B2-B4). In contrast to the union’s

9 notice in California School Employees Ass’n, the notices here do not refer to any relief sought

10 by individuals other than the named Plaintiffs. Moreover, while the notices assert that the

11 actions of the officers “were part of the Department’s illegal policy and practice of

12 discriminatory targeting of African-American families like mine who participate in the federal

13 Section 8 housing subsidy programs in Antioch,” that individualized language is not

14 susceptible to an interpretation that reasonably enables the City to adequately investigation a

15 class discrimination claim. (RJN, Exs. B1-B4.) As noted by Defendant, that language could

16 reasonably be interpreted as an allegation of municipality liability under Section 1983. See

17 Burke v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A municipality may be held

18 liable under § 1983 ‘when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its

19 lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy,

20 inflicts the injury.’”) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

21 694 (1978)).

22

For the forgoing reasons, the notices of the four named Plaintiffs do not satisfy the

23 claim presentation requirement of Section 945.4 for a class claim.

24 III. CONCLUSION

25

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s Motion

26 for Judgment on the Pleadings, seeking to dismiss named Plaintiff Bunton and the class’s

27 claims for statutory damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, is GRANTED.

28

This Order terminates Docket No. 173.

- 9 -

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document203 Filed09/02/10 Page10 of 10

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated: September 2, 2010
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge
- 10 -

 
 Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document234 Filed04/06/12 Page1 of 4

1 (Counsel listed on next page)

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY No. C-08-2301 SBA

RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE

8 COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and

DISMISSAL ORDER

ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of

9 themselves and all others similarly situated,

10

Plaintiffs,

v.
11

CITY OF ANTIOCH,
12

Defendant.
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document234 Filed04/06/12 Page2 of 4

1
Impact Fund 2 BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
bseligman@impactfund.org 3 JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 110817)
125 University Avenue, Suite 102 4 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 510.845.3473 5 Facsimile: 510.845.3654

6 Bingham McCutchen LLP FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844)
7 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111
8 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286
9

10

Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

11 OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)

131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 12 San Francisco, CA 94105

13 Telephone: 415.543.9444

14 American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California
15 ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957) 39 Drumm Street
16 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.621.2493
17
Public Advocates, Inc. 18 RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN
139619) 19 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105 20 Telephone: 415.431.7430

21 Covington & Burling LLP HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN
22 172732) hgilliam@cov.com
23 One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111
24 Telephone: 415.591.6000 Facsimile: 415.591.6091
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Class
26

27

28 1

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher THOMAS G. BEATTY (SBN 75794) JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 55632) 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.939.5530 Facsimile: 925.939.0203
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANTIOCH

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document234 Filed04/06/12 Page3 of 4

1

2

WHEREAS, on January 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley granted preliminary

3

approval of the settlement of this action, embodied in the Settlement Agreement, attached
4

5 as Appendix 1 to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement;

6

WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley issued a Report and

7 Recommendation finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in all
8
respects within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and applicable law, and thus
9
10 recommended that the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement be granted;

11

WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Corley has found that the notice sent to the Class

12 Members fairly and adequately informed the Class of the terms of the settlement, was
13
consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and due process, and was given in the manner
14
15 prescribed by the Settlement Agreement and the Court’s order preliminarily approving

16 the settlement;

17

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012, this Court issued an order Accepting Magistrate

18
Judge Corley’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion for Final
19

20 Approval of Class Action Settlement be granted:

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

22

1. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, this Court hereby enters final

23
judgment in this action, and dismisses this action with prejudice.
24

25

2. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for three years

26 following the entry of the Final Approval Order. The Court appoints Magistrate Judge

27

28 2

Case4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document234 Filed04/06/12 Page4 of 4

1 Corley to consider any claims alleging a violation of the Agreement.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED

3

Dated: 4/3/12
4

__________ _______________________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

5

United States District Court

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

 
 Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 1 of 41

Brad Seligman (SBN 083838)

James V. Fitzgerald, III (SBN 55632)

bseligman@impactfund.org
2 Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN II 0817)
IMPACT FUND 3 125 University Ave., Suite 102
Berkeley, CA 94710 4 Telephone: (510) 845-3473
Facsimile: (51 0) 845-3654 5

Thomas G. Beatty (SBN 75794) McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.939.5530 Facsimile: 925.939.0203

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class

6

Attorneys for Defendant

[Additional counsel listed on last page] 7

CITY OF ANTIOCH

8

9

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

)

14 SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
15 COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of
16 themselves and all others similarly situated,

) ) ) Case No.: C-08-2301 SBA ) )
) JOINT MOTION IN SUPPORT OF

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
~ CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
)

19 CITY OF ANTIOCH,

) )

20

Defendant.

) )

21

)

)

22 __________________________________)

23 The parties have reached a class action settlement of this matter, a copy of which is attached
24 as Appendix A to this motion. The parties jointly move for an order preliminarily approving
25 this class action settlement and the proposed class notice plan. This motion is based on this
26 Motion, and the accompanying declaration of Brad Seligman, and the proposed Order.
27

- 1-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 2 of 41

I. INTRODUCTION

2

This lawsuit was filed as a class action in July 2008 by five African-American women

3 participating in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The lawsuit alleges that the

4 City of Antioch and its Police Department (collectively, "Antioch") discriminated against

5 African-American Section 8 families based on their race and Section 8 status. Plaintiffs sought

6 damages and injunctive relief.

7

Antioch denies the allegations of the lawsuit, denies that it has discriminated on the basis

8 of race or Section 8 status, and alleges that CAT has been engaged in legitimate community

9 policing efforts intended to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. Antioch further

10 denies that plaintiffs have suffered any injury as a result of defendant's conduct.

11

The parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations after significant class

12 certification discovery and motion practice. A settlement agreement has been reached and,

13 together, the parties seek this Court's preliminary approval of the agreement and of the class

14 notice plan.

15

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

16

a. History of Litigation

17

Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against Antioch in the United States District

18 Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C08-2301 SBA, alleging among other

19 claims, intentional discrimination based on race and Section 8 status, and discrimination based

20 on the disparate statistical impact ofCAT's policies on African-American Section 8 subsidy

21 recipients. Plaintiffs sought individual damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf

22 of a class of similarly situated African-American Section 8 residents in Antioch. The First

23 Amended Complaint also sought statutory damages for the class under the Bane Act (California

24 Civil Code §52.1 ).

25

Antioch denied the allegations and disputed that any relief was justified, maintaining

26 that the Antioch Police Department, including the police department's Community Action

27 Team, was focused on responding to complaints regarding nuisance, crime, and drug activity.

-2-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 3 of 41

The parties undertook substantial pre-class ccrti fication discovery, including more than

2 two dozen depositions, and extensive document and data discovery. In addition, the parties

3 proffered numerous expert witness reports. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on

4 October 26, 2009, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). In response,

5 Defendant filed an opposition to the motion for certification, as well as a motion for a judgment

6 on the pleadings to dismiss the damage claims under the Bane Act for Plaintiff Priscilla Bunton

7 and the class, on the grounds that there had been a failure to comply with the Government Tort

8 Claims Act.

9

On September 2, 2010, the Court ruled on the respective motions. The court granted

10 Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, defined as "all African-Americans who have held,

11 currently hold, or may hold Section 8 housing vouchers, and all members of their households,

12 who reside, have resided or will reside, in the City of Antioch." The Court then granted

13 Defendant's motion, dismissing claims for statutory damages for Bunton and the class.

14

b. Settlement Negotiations

15

The parties attended two settlement conferences before then-Magistrate Judge James Larson

16 on August 18,2009 and. May 18,2011. On September 29,2011, the parties met for a third

17 extended mediation session at Judge Larson's private offices. Negotiations continued thereafter

18 with telephone communications assisted by Judge Larson for several weeks. Once an

19 agreement in principle was reached, the parties exchanged multiple drafts and met both in

20 person and over the telephone and e-mail to reach a final agreement. The Settlement

21 Agreement provides for a final and negotiated resolution ofPlaintiffs' damages claims, class

22 injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

23

III. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS

24

The Settlement, which is attached to this motion as Appendix A, provides, in summary, that:

25

1. The City of Antioch will not publicly identify African-American Section 8 recipients,

26

except as allowed in , 1c. Agreement at ,I 1b.

27

2. The City of Antioch will not focus on African-American Section 8 recipients on either

-3-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 4 of 41

the basis of their race or Section 8 status in its policing efforts, except when race is used

2

specifically to identify a suspect. Agreement at ,Jle.

3

3. The Antioch Police Department will send copies of any communications it sends to the

4

Housing Authority of Contra Costa County regarding complaints about identified Section

5

8 recipients to the Impact Fund for three years. Agreement at ,I 1c.

6

4. The City of Antioch will not retaliate against the five named Plaintiffs or those family

7

members of the Plaintiffs approved to live in their household by the Housing Authority.

8

Agreement at , 1d

9

5. Plaintiffs will dismiss this case with prejudice within 30 days of the Court's final

10

approval order of the Settlement. Agreement at ,J4.

11

6. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement and consider claims of

12

violations of the Settlement for three years following the Final Approval Order. Any

13

disputes arising under the Settlement will be heard by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline

14

Corley. Agreement at ~4.

15

7. The City of Antioch will pay $180,000.00, to be divided equally among the five named

16

Plaintiffs. Agreement at ~ 1a.

17

8. Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel in partial compensation for attorneys'

18

fees and costs ofthe Civil Action in the sum of$180,000.00. Agreement at ~11.

19

9. The five Named Plaintiffs release and settle all of their claims against the City arising out

20

of the action. Class members who are not Named Plaintiffs release their injunctive and

21

declaratory relief claims, but do not release any individual claims for monetary relief.

22

Agreement at ,[7.

23

IV. ARGUMENT

24

The parties believe that this Settlement Agreement meets all the requirements of Federal

25 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e) and should be approved by this Court.

26

a. The Settlement Agreement Is Fundamentally Fair, Reasonable and

Adequate
27

- 4-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 5 of 41
Under Rule 23( e), the question to be decided by this Court is whether this settlement 2
agreement is "fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate." In re S)"ncor ERISA Litig., 516 3
F.3d I095, I097, II 00 (9th Cir. 2008). To do so, the Ninth Circuit requires that a "court's 4
intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement. .. must be limited to the 5
extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or 6
overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties." Officers for Justice v. Civil 7
Service Comm., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). In this task, the trial court must recognize 8
that the settlement is "the offspring of compromise." Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,
9 1027 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus the question is not whether "the final product could be prettier,
10 smarter or snazzier" but, instead, whether the agreement, as it has been reached, is fair to the
11 class overall. !d.; Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625 (trial court should not judge the
12 proposed settlement against a speculative measure of what might have been achieved).
13 Typically, in its evaluation ofthe proposed settlement, the court will consider several
14 factors. The following elements are often among those weighed in this consideration: (1) the
15 strength of plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further
16 litigation; (3) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (4) the
17 experience and views of counsel; (5) and the relief offered in the settlement. Hanlon, 150 F.3d
18 at 1026; Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. The degree of importance attached to each factor
19 is determined by the nature of the claim brought, the type of relief sought, and the facts and
20 circumstances of the case. Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. While considering these
21 factors, a court should be mindful that "there is a strong judicial policy that favors settlements,
22 particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned." In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516
23 F.3d at 1101; Class Plaintiffs v. City ofSeattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992) (same);
24 Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625 ("[V]oluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred
25 means of dispute resolution."); Robinson v. Shelby Cty. Bd. ofEduc., 566 F.3d 642, 648 (6th
26 Cir. 2009) ("it is also well-established that '[p]ublic policy strongly favors settlement of
27
-5-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 6 of 41

disputes without litigation....Settlement agreements should therefore be upheld whenever
2 equitable and policy considerations so pennit."') (citation omitted, ellipses in origina1). 1

3

i. The Settlement Agreement Resolves Heavily Disputed Claims

4

The settlement agreement resolves all claims remaining after the court's judgment on

5 the pleadings which precluded class damages in this action. As the class certification motion

6 papers demonstrated, this was a heavily disputed case, with each side presenting fundamentally

7 different factual and legal arguments. With class damages precluded, plaintiffs' primary

8 concern was how, on an ongoing basis, the Antioch police department's community policing

9 efforts impacted African American Section 8 families. In determining whether the settlement is

10 fair, reasonable and adequate, the "primary concern" of the court is how the substantive terms

11 ofthe agreement address plaintiffs' objections to Antioch's practices. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

12 1027 ("Of course it is possible...that the settlement could have been better" but proper

13 settlement requires addressing plaintiffs' "primary concern" in a fair and adequate manner, free

14 of collusion).

15

The settlement addressed this primary concern by specifying the parties' agreement

16 regarding treatment of the class. Under the agreement, Antioch agrees to not focus on African17 American Section 8 recipients on either the basis of their race or Section 8 status in its policing 18 efforts. Agreement at ~1e. Antioch agrees not to publicly identify African American Section 8
19 recipients. Agreement at ,!1 b. Additionally, the Antioch Police Department agrees to submit for
20 review by one of Plaintiffs' counsel (The Impact Fund) any complaints about Section 8 21

22 1 Courts generally evaluate settlements in a three-step process: (1) Preliminary Hearing. The
court ordinarily holds a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a likelihood it could 23 approve the settlement before conducting a full "fairness hearing." Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026-27.
(2) Notice to the Class. If preliminary approval is given, notice of the proposed dismissal or 24 compromise must be provided to all class members in such manner as the court directs. Fed. R.
25 Civ. Proc. 23(e). Once the court approves the notice, it is sent to class members. 4 Newberg on Class Actions§ 11:24. (3) Fairness Hearing. Following notice to the class members, a hearing
26 is held on the proposed settlement at which proponents of and objectors to the settlement may be heard. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026-27. The court then approves or disapproves ofthe settlement.
27 !d. at 1027.

-6 JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 7 of 41

recipients that it forwards to the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, thereby providing

2 a check on improper actions in the future that might affect Section 8 recipients. Agreement at

3 ,Jlc. Finally, Antioch agrees not to retaliate against Named Plaintiffs or certain family members

4 approved to live with them. Agreement at ,11 d.

5

In addition, the Agreement provides that these provisions will be enforced under the

6 jurisdiction of the federal court for three years, providing added protection for plaintiffs and the

7 class. To preserve the resources of the court, the parties have agreed that disputes will be

8

. ..
Imtially

.
submitted

for

.
resolution

to

.
Magtstrate

Judge

Corley.

Agreement

at

,J4.

~"')

9

ii. The Settlement Agreement Provides Benefits to Members of the Class

10

The class members are the beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement provisions that

11 address the future conduct of Antioch, and thus they get the full benefit of its term over the

12 next three years. The Court dismissed the statutory damages claim for the class under the Bane

13 Act in its September 2, 2010 order. Docket No. 203. The Settlement does not affect the

14 damages claims, if any, that members ofthe class (other than the named plaintiffs) may have, as

15 those potential claims are not released by the settlement. Agreement at ~8.

16

The damage awards to the five Named Plaintiffs ($36,000 each) represent a fair

17 compromise of their claims in light of the evidence and the risks of trial and potential appeal.

18 Seligman Declaration at ,, 5 .

19

iii. Further Litigation Would be Risky, Expensive and Complex

20

Antioch has entered into this Settlement without admitting any wrongdoing or liability

21 and the court has made no findings as to liability as to Defendants City of Antioch, the Antioch

22 Police department or any Antioch police officer. If this case does not settle, the result would be

23 protracted litigation that would involve considerable costs and a significant investment of time

24 by plaintiffs, defendant, and their respective counsel, and would burden the resources of this

25 2 The magistrate's determinations are subject to appeal to the Court. See N.D. Cal. Local Rule
26 72-3.
27

- 7JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 8 of 41

Court. The litigation would include additional motion practice, trial, and potential appeal. As

2 the case seeks injunctive relief for the class, there was a risk that the case would become moot if

3 the police department abolished the Community Action Team and ceased the disputed

4 enforcement activities. Counsel acknowledge the risk of pursuing litigation, and believe it to be

5 in the best interests of their respective clients to resolve this matter without further litigation.

6 Davis v. City and County ofSan Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989) (district

7 court's approval of settlement affirmed, in part, because city had risks in continuing litigation,

8 discovery in the case was substantially complete, and a "trial on harassment issues would have

9 been long and complex").

10

In addition, the parties have, for purposes of settlement, agreed to an amount for

11 attorney fees and costs ($180,000) that is markedly below the lodestar amount that plaintiffs'

12 attorneys have incurred in the litigation to date. Due to its complexity and the size of the

13 record, this case has been extremely time consuming and expensive, and the current lodestar for

14 plaintiffs' attorneys is over $3.4 million, with out of pocket costs exceeding $100,000.

15 Seligman Declaration at ,j9. Further litigation would greatly increase Defendant's already

16 substantial potential fees liability.

17

Nothing about the posture or nature of this case indicates a certain benefit in proceeding

18 with litigation. All the factors demonstrate the benefit of approving settlement at this stage. In

19 re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d at 1101; Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1276; Officers for

20 Justice, 688 F.2d at 625.

21

IV. The Settlement Was Reached Through Fair and Non-Collusive

Negotiations
22

23

The negotiations in this case reflect arms-length dealings and the absence of collusion.

24 See Seligman Decl. at ,!3; see also 4 Newberg on Class Actions §11:42 ("An initial

25 presumption of fairness is usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class counsel

26 after arm's-length bargaining."). The parties aggressively litigated the case. The settlement

27 negotiations were difficult and spanned three different settlement conferences before Judge

- 8-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 9 of 41

Larson as well as numerous phone calls and e-mail exchanges. Counsel at all times provided

2 their respective clients with zealous representation. The entire Antioch City Council reviewed

3 and approved the final agreement in a closed-session meeting on October 25, 2011.

4

v. The Attomeys Recommending Settlement Are Competent and

Experienced 5

6

All parties in this action were represented by experienced counsel. Plaintiffs' legal team

7 includes very experienced attomeys with substantial experience in constitutional law and civil

8 rights class action litigation. The public interest law firms and private counsel involved in this

9 case shared plaintiffs' objective of ensuring that the constitutional and statutory rights of

10 African-American Section 8 recipients would be protected. Their expertise and experience in

11 class action litigation has enabled them to evaluate the faimess and adequacy of the Settlement.

12

b. The Proposed Notice Comports with Due Process and Rule 23(e)

13

The Settlement sets out the means of notice to class in compliance with Rule 23 ("Class

14 Notice"). To satisfy due process, the manner of notice must be reasonable and conducted in a

15 way that does not systematically leave any group without notice. Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d

16 at 624; see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(l) (The Court "must direct notice in a reasonable

17 manner"). Counsel for Plaintiffs will seek an updated class list from the Housing Authority of

18 Contra Costa County ("HACCC"), which has jurisdiction over Antioch Section 8 participants.

19 Plaintiffs' counsel will combine this list with any other data sources that they currently have in

20 their possession to create the most complete class member list possible. The actual Class

21 Notice (which has been agreed to by the parties and is attached to the settlement agreement)

22 provides the class members with a description of the injunctive terms ofthe Settlement, the

23 right to object to the Settlement at the final approval and faimess hearing, the partial

24 reimbursement of attomeys' fees, and the settlement amount for the Named Plaintiffs.

25 Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962-963 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Settlement

26 notices are supposed to present information about a proposed settlement neutrally, simply and

27 understandably.").

- 9JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 10 of 41

Class Notice will be mailed, published and publicly posted. Specifically, Class Notice

2 will be mailed to the last known address of each class member on the updated class list.

3 Agreement at ,J9. Class Notice mailed to a Section 8 voucher holder shall be considered notice

4 for all members of his or her household. Class Notice will also be posted on the web sites for

5 the City of Antioch, the Impact Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Class Notice

6 will be posted in the offices of Housing Authority of Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa

7 Department of Social Services subject to the consent of the agencies' respective directors,

8 which shall be obtained by Plaintiffs' counsel. Class Notice will be posted in the public area at

9 City Hall in a location where public or community notices are usually posted.

10

V. CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that this Court preliminarily

12 approve this Settlement and direct the implementation ofthe plans for Class Notice.

13 14 Dated: 12/16/11 15 16 17

By: /s/ Brad Seligman Brad Seligman IMPACT FUND Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class

18 19 Dated: 20 21
22
23

/2[5/11

By: Jam V. Fitzgerald, III Thomas G. Beatty McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP Attorneys for Defendant

24

25

26

27

- 10-
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 11 of 41

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern Cali fomia
2 ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957)
aschlosser@0aclunc.org 3 39 Drumm St.
San Francisco, CA 94111 4 Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 5
Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights of the 6 San Francisco Bay Area
OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074) 7 osellstrom@lccr.com
131 Steuart St., Suite 400 8 San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-9444 9 Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
10 Public Advocates, Inc. RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN
11 139619) rmarcantonio@publicadvocates.org
12 131 Steuart St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105
13 Telephone: (415) 431-7430 14 Facsimile: (415) 431-1048 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Bingham McCutchen LLP FRANK KENNAMER (SBN 157844) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 941 11-4067 Telephone: 415.393.2000
Covington & Burling, HAYWOOD GILLIAM, Jr. (SBN 172732) h~i lliam((/covi_nglot!._C(llll One Front St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.955-6530
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

- 11 -
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETfLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 12 of 41
Appendix 1

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 13 of 41
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS; MARY RUTH SCOTT; KAREN LATREECE COLEMAN; PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE ("NAMED PLAINTIFFS") and others similarly situated as to injunctive relief and statutory damages pursuant to the Class Certification Order dated September 2, 2010 ("Settlement Class") (collectively "PLAINTIFFS") and the CITY OF ANTIOCH ("ANTIOCH") (collectively "PARTIES").
RECITALS A. PLAINTIFFS filed this class action lawsuit against ANTIOCH in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C08-230 1 SBA, alleging among other claims, intentional discrimination based on race and Section 8 status, and unintentional discrimination based on a disparate statistical impact of ANTIOCH'S Community Policing policies on African-American Section 8 subsidy recipients. PLAINTIFFS sought damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees for the matters alleged in the complaint on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons (the "Civil Action"). B. ANTIOCH denied the allegations ofthe Civil Action and disputed that any relief was justified maintaining that the Antioch Police Department, including the Community Action Team, was focused on responding to complaints regarding nuisance, criminal and drug activity. There was no finding of intentional discrimination against any individual ANTIOCH police officer or the Antioch Police Department in the course of the Civil Action. C. On September 2, 201 0, the Court certified, for claims of injunctive relief only, a class defined as all African-Americans who have held, currently hold, or may hold Section 8
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
1

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 14 of 41
housing vouchers, and all members of their households, who reside, have resided or will reside, in the City of Antioch. These injunctive relief class members are PARTIES in addition to the PLAINTIFFS and ANTIOCH. The Court also granted ANTIOCH's motion for judgment on the pleadings denying the injunctive relief class members from seeking statutory damages in the Civil Action.
D. The PARTIES have conducted sufficient discovery to allow them to fully evaluate their legal positions. PLAINTIFFS have reviewed voluminous documents and taken depositions of numerous City and police officials.
E. The PARTIES wish to resolve the Civil Action. F. The PARTIES voluntarily and freely enter this Agreement for that purpose. In consideration of the terms set forth below, the PARTIES, intending to be legally bound, enter into this Agreement and agree to execute this document as a full and complete release of PLAINTIFFS' claims, providing the following terms and conditions are complied with:
AGREEMENT 1. Consideration. In consideration of the promises contained herein, ANTIOCH agrees as follows:
la. NAMED PLAINTIFFS will be paid the total amount of $180,000.00 (ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) within 30 days after dismissal of the Civil Action. This sum shall be divided equally among the five NAMED PLAINTIFFS. lb. ANTIOCH agrees that it will not publicly identify African American Section 8 recipients except as allowed for in paragraph 1c. herein.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
2

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 15 of 41
lc. ANTIOCH's Police Department agrees to send copies of any communications it sends to the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County ("HACCC") regarding complaints about identified Section 8 recipients, within 30 days of transmission to HACCC, to the Impact Fund for three years after the date of the Final Approval Order. 1d. From the date of this Agreement, ANTIOCH agrees not to retaliate against NAMED PLAINTIFFS or family members residing in the NAMED PLAINTIFFS' Section 8 household at the time of the alleged retaliation, if HACCC has been notified of the family member or, if approval is required, if HACCC has approved the family member prior to the alleged retaliation. le. ANTIOCH agrees not to focus on African American Section 8 recipients on either the basis of their race or Section 8 status in its Policing efforts, except when race is used as a suspect specific identifier. 2. Definition of Settlement Class. For purposes of this Agreement, the SETTLEMENT CLASS is defined in the same way as the class certified for litigation by the Court on September 2, 2010. That definition is: all African-Americans who have held, currently hold, or may hold Section 8 housing vouchers, and all members of their households, who reside, have resided or will reside, in the City of Antioch. 3. Consideration of Attorneys' Fees And Costs. Except as provided in paragraph 11 below, each of the PARTIES will bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
3

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 16 of 41
4. Dismissal and Continuing Jurisdiction. PLAINTIFFS will dismiss this Civil Action with prejudice within 30 days ofthe Final Approval Order. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement for three years following the Final Approval Order. Magistrate Judge Corley will be appointed under FRCP 53 to act as a Magistrate Judge to consider claims of violations of the Agreement.
5. No Admission of Liability. The PARTIES acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and compliance with this Agreement shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of liability or fault by ANTIOCH or any of ANTIOCH'S employees. The PARTIES further acknowledge that ANTIOCH disputes PLAINTIFFS' allegations and that this Agreement is made by ANTIOCH to avoid the cost of litigation.
6. No Pending Litigation. PLAINTIFFS represent that, other than the Civil Action, they do not presently have on file any complaints, grievances, charges or claims against ANTIOCH or any other employee of the CITY OF ANTIOCH.
7. Release By Named Plaintiffs; In return and in consideration of the promises contained herein, NAMED PLAINTIFFS release, and absolutely and forever discharge ANTIOCH and its predecessors, successors, assigns, and each past or present official, employee, agent, representative, officer, and any other person or firm who, previously or hereinafter, is affiliated in any manner with any of the above ("RELEASEES"), from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, liens, expenses, costs, damages, attorneys' fees, claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and liabilities which NAMED PLAINTIFFS ever had, now have, or may hereinafter have, against any of them by reason of any act, cause, matter or event whatsoever to the date of this Agreement, whether known or unknown, arising directly or indirectly out of or in any way connected with, or based upon, or in any way related to, the
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
4

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 17 of 41
subject matter of the Civil Action. NAMED PLAINTIFFS agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless RELEASEES against any and all lien claims against NAMED PLAINTIFFS by health care providers, hospitals, clinics, EMS first responders, health maintenance organizations, workers compensation carriers, or agents/entities retained on their behalf to recoup medical costs, respecting any services, payments, benefits, compensation or indemnification of any kind related in any way to injuries suffered or incurred by NAMED PLAINTIFFS arising directly or indirectly out of or in any way connected with, or based upon or in any way related to, the subject matter of the Civil Action.
8. Release by Settlement Class Members. a. The members of the SETTLEMENT CLASS release all claims for classwide injunctive and declaratory relief that the members of the SETTLEMENT CLASS may have against ANTIOCH arising from the Civil Action. b. The members of the SETTLEMENT CLASS who are not NAMED PLAINTIFFS do not release any claims for individual monetary relief, including, civil penalties, compensatory or punitive damages that were or may have been asserted in this case.
9. Notice to Class. In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the PARTIES agree to the following notice plan:
a. Updated Class List: The PLAINTIFFS will request and obtain an updated list of Section 8 recipients living in Antioch from the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County no less than 30 days prior to submission of the Agreement for preliminary approval. The PLAINTIFFS will combine this list with any other data sources that they currently have in their possession to create the most complete class member list possible.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
5

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 18 of 41
b. Notice - Class Notice shall be provided to the Class List in a form approved by the Court. The Parties' proposed Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Notice provides class members with a description of the injunctive terms of the Agreement, the right to object to the Agreement at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing, the request for attorneys' fees, and the settlement amounts for the NAMED PLAINTIFFS.
c. Notice Plan 1. Class Notice will be distributed and posted in the manner set forth below not later than 14 days after entry ofthe Court's Preliminary Approval Order. 2. Class Notice will be posted in the public area at City Hall in a location where public or community notices are usually posted. 3. Class Notice will be posted on the web site for the City of Antioch. 4. Class Notice will be posted in the offices of the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa Department of Social Services subject to the consent of the agencies' respective directors, which shall be obtained by PLAINTIFFS. 5. This Settlement Agreement and Class Notice will be posted on the websites for the Impact Fund and the ACLU. 6. Class Notice will be mailed to the last known address of each class member on the Updated Class List. 7. Notice mailed to a Section 8 voucher holder shall be considered notice for all members of his or her household.
d. Costs of Notice - ANTIOCH shall pay the costs of Class Notice up to Two Thousand Dollars ($2000).
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
6

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 19 of 41
10. Settlement Fairness Process. a. Preliminary Approval - The parties will submit this Agreement to the Court and request preliminary approval of its terms and approval of the Notice Plan. The parties will request that the Court enter a Preliminary Approval Order, substantially in the form of Exhibit B. b. Class Notice- Class Notice will be distributed and posted in the manner set forth in this Agreement not later than 14 days after entry of the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. c. Class Member Objections - Any SETTLEMENT CLASS member who wishes to object to this Agreement or otherwise be heard concerning this settlement shall timely inform Class Counsel, Counsel for ANTIOCH and the Court in writing of his or her intent to object and/or appear at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing by following the procedures set forth in the Class Notice. The deadline for objections shall be set by the Court. d. Final Approval and Fairness Hearing- The Court shall hold the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing on the date established in the Notice. The PARTIES shall request that, ifthe Court approves the Agreement at the Final Approval and Fairness hearing, it enter the Final Approval Order in the form proposed as Exhibit C and the Final Judgment in the form proposed as Exhibit D.
11. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.- The total amount of $180,000.00 (ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) shall be payable to the NAMED PLAINTIFFS' attorneys of record, as full consideration for any and all attorney's fees and costs
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
7

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 20 of 41
incurred in this matter, within 30 days after dismissal of the Civil Action. Payment to be made per instructions by counsel for The Impact Fund.
12. Defense. This Agreement may be pled as a full and complete defense to any subsequent action or other proceeding involving any person or party, which arises out of, relates to, or has anything to do with, the rights and claims waived, released and discharged by this Agreement. This provision expressly excludes any claim for civil penalties or other damage claims brought by or on behalf of any class member other than the NAMED PLAINTIFFS.
13. No Assignment By PLAINTIFFS. NAMED PLAINTIFFS represent and warrant that they have not heretofore assigned or transferred or purported to assign or transfer, to any person or entity, a claim, debt, liability demand, obligation, cost, attorneys' fees, expense, action or cause of action herein released. NAMED PLAINTIFFS further agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend RELEASEES from any and all claims, debts, liens, liabilities, or demands, obligations, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, action or cause of action which are in any way based on, arising out of, or in connection with any such transfer or assignment, including all actual attorneys' fees and costs in connection therewith.
14. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and for the benefit of the PARTIES hereto and their respective heirs, successors, predecessors, devisees, administrators, executors, affiliates, representatives, assigns, and their respective agents and employees, partners, members and representatives, wherever the context requires or admits, both jointly and individually.
15. Advice Of Counsel. The PARTIES, and each of them, acknowledge that they have been competently represented by counsel of their own choosing in the negotiations for, and the preparing of this Agreement, that they have read the Agreement or had it read to them by
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA
8

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 21 of 41
their counsel, that they are fully aware of its contents and of its legal effect, and that each party enters into this Agreement freely, without coercion, based on the PARTIES' own judgment and not in reliance upon any representations or promises made by the other party. The PARTIES, and each of them, expressly waive any and all claims, charges, complaints, actions and causes of action against any other party arising out of or in any way associated with the negotiation, preparation, or execution of this Agreement.
16. Complete and Final Agreement. Subject to the approval ofthe Court ofthis Agreement, this Agreement contains all of the agreement, conditions, promises and covenants between the PARTIES and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations or understandings with respect to the subject matter of the present agreement.
17. Assumption of Risk. The PARTIES, and each ofthem, hereby expressly assume the risk of any mistake of fact or law, or both, or that the true facts or laws might be other or different from facts and laws now known or believed to exist. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that it has made such investigation of the facts pertaining to this Agreement as each deems necessary, and in entering into this Agreement, each party assumes the risk of mistake with respect to such facts.
18. Voluntary Agreement. The PARTIES agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the PARTIES and it is expressly understood and agreed that the Agreement has been freely and voluntarily entered into by the PARTIES with the advice of counsel, who have explained the legal effect of this Agreement. The PARTIES further acknowledge that no warranties or representations or inducements not contained in this Agreement have been made on any subject in connection with this Agreement, and that they have not been induced to execute this Agreement by reason of nondisclosure or suppression of
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA 9

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 22 of 41
any fact. Except as directed or ordered by the Court, this Agreement may not be altered, modified or otherwise changed in any respect except by writing, duly executed by all of the PARTIES or their authorized representatives.
19. Governing Law. The terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of California.
20. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542. The PARTIES in this Agreement intend this Agreement to be a full and general release as to the subject matter described above, and they hereby mutually waive all claims or benefits that they now have, or in the future may have under the provisions of section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads as follows:
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 or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. The PARTIES to this Agreement, having been apprised ofthe statutory language of Civil Code Section 1542 by their attorneys, and each fully understanding the same, nevertheless elect to waive the benefits of any and all rights any of them may have pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542. The PARTIES to this Agreement understand that if the facts with respect to which this Agreement is executed are found hereinafter to be different from the facts now believed by any ofthem to be true, that this Agreement shall be effective notwithstanding such material difference. This waiver does not apply to nor affect the rights of SETTLEMENT CLASS Members. 21. Neutral Interpretation. PLAINTIFFS, their counsel, and ANTIOCH, and its counsel, have cooperated in the preparation ofthis Agreement, and this Agreement therefore shall not be construed against any party.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. COS-2301 SBA 10

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 23 of 41
22. Warranty Of Authority. Each ofthe undersigned individuals represents and warrants to each ofthe other PARTIES and such other PARTIES' attorneys that (a) he, she or it has full right, power and authority to bind the party on behalf of which he, she or it is executing this Agreement in a representative capacity, to all of the terms of this Agreement, and that (b) no consent of any other person is required by any party to this Agreement as a condition to such party being bound by this Agreement (or that such consent has been obtained). Authority to bind the Settlement Class is expressly conditioned on approval of the Court as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and shall be binding and effective immediately upon the execution by all PARTIES of one or more counterparts.
24. Enforceability. The provisions of this Agreement are contractual in nature and not merely recitals, and shall be considered independent and severable, and if any such provision or any part thereof shall at any time be held invalid, in whole or in part, under any federal, state, county, municipal or other law, ruling or regulation, then such provision or part thereof shall remain in force and effect to the extent permitted by law, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall also remain in full force and effect, and enforceable.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL WILLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL. C08-2301 SBA 11

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 24 of 41

I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE CONTENTS-OF THIS AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING IT AND HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY FOR MY RECORDS.

DATED:

}0- ~5- ,2011

PLAINTIFFS

DATED: /0-;(!s- '2011
DATED: /(} -/?:)-· '2011
DATED: {o -z..s , 2011
lo- DATED: -z-5. z.t>ll '2011

11 j DATED: 1/ I

,2011

DEFENDANT

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

h y f. ) DATED: t,..._ 1

'2011

DATED: __11-L~-/_.:__7 ____,, 20ll

Thehnp Fund

Brad Seligman, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class

/t

-/;!__

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, ...,.__., Ambacher LLP James V. Fitzgerald, ill Attorneys for Defendant

SETILEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO COURT APPR.OVAL W1LLIAMS V. CITY OF ANTIOCH. ET AL. C08-l301 SBA
12

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 25 of 41

1 (Counsel listed on next page)

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
8 COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of
9 themselves and all others similarly situated,

10

Plaintiffs,

V.
11

CITY OF ANTIOCH, 12

Defendant. 13

No. C-08-230 1 SBA [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED) JUDGMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 26 of 41

1 Impact Fund
2 BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
bseligman@impactfund.org 3 JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 11 0817)
125 University Avenue, Suite 102 4 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 510.845.3473 5 Facsimile: 510.845.3654
6 Bingham McCutchen LLP FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844)
7 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111
8 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286
9
Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights 10 ofthe San Francisco Bay Area 11 OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 12 San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415.543.9444 13
American Civil Liberties Union 14 Foundation ofNorthem California
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957) 15 39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111 16 Telephone: 415.621.2493
17 Public Advocates, Inc. RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN 139619)
18 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105
19 Telephone: 415.431.7430
20 Covington & Burling LLP HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN 172732)
21 hgilliam@cov.com One Front Street
22 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.591.6000
23 Facsimile: 415.591.6091
24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Class
25

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher THOMAS G. BEATTY (SBN 75794) JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 55632) 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.939.5530 Facsimile: 925.939.0203
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANTIOCH

26

27

28

1

NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 27 of 41

1

2

WHEREAS, on _____, 2011, this Court granted preliminary approval of a

3
settlement of this action, embodied in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to this
4 Court's _ _ _, 2011 Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement;
5
WHEREAS, on _____, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement, 6

7 finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8 23(e) and applicable law;

9

WHEREAS, the Court has found that the notice sent to the Class Members fairly and

10 adequately informed the Class of the terms of the settlement, was consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.

11 23(e) and due process, and was given in the manner prescribed by the Settlement Agreement and
12 the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement:
13

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

15

1. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the

16 _ _ _, 2011, Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, this Court hereby enters
17 final judgment in this action, and dismisses this action with prejudice.
18
2. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for three years following
19
the entry of the Final Approval Order. The Court appoints Magistrate Judge Corley under Fed. 20
R. Civ. P. 53 to act as a Magistrate Judge to consider claims of violations of the Agreement. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED
23 Dated this __ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2011.

24

25

26

Hon. Sandra Brown Armstrong

United States District Court, Northern District of California

27

28

2

NO.: C'-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 28 of 41

1 (Counsel listed on next page)

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
8 COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of
9 themselves and all others similarly situated,

10

Plaintiffs,

V.
11

CITY OF ANTIOCH,
12

Defendant. 13

14

15

16

17

No. C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT;

(2) APPROVING CLASS NOTICE AND RELATED MATERIALS; AND

(3) SCHEDULING FAIRNESS AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

Date: _ _ _ _ _, 2011

Time:

.m.

Courtroom: The Hon. Sandra Brown

Armstrong

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED) ORDER RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 29 of 41

1 Impact Fund
2 BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
bseligman@impactfund.org 3 JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN II 0817)
125 University Avenue, Suite I 02 4 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 510.845.3473 5 Facsimile: 510.845.3654
6 Bingham McCutchen LLP FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844)
7 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111
8 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286
9
Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights 10 ofthe San Francisco Bay Area 11 OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 12 San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415.543.9444 13
American Civil Liberties Union 14 Foundation ofNorthern California
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957) 15 39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111 16 Telephone: 415.621.2493
17 Public Advocates, Inc. RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN 139619)
18 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 941 05
19 Telephone: 415.431.7430
20 Covington & Burling LLP
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN 172732) 21 hgilliam@cov.com
One Front Street
22 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.591.6000
23 Facsimile: 415.591.6091
24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Class
25

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher THOMAS G. BEATTY (SBN 75794) JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 55632) 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.939.5530 Facsimile: 925.939.0203
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANTIOCH

26

27

28
NO .. C-08-2301 SBA
)PROPOSED) ORDER RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 30 of 41

1

2

The parties have conditionally agreed to a proposed settlement. It appears to the Court

3 that the proposed Settlement Agreement is the result of arm's length negotiations between the
4 parties with the assistance of a third-party neutral mediator. After reviewing the terms of the
5
proposed settlement in the context of the record in this action and the controlling legal authority, 6

7 the Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate,

8 and consistent with relevant state and federal law, to warrant notice thereof to Class members

9 and a full hearing thereon. 10

11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
12
1. The Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A hereto is hereby
13
14 preliminarily approved. Final approval and entry of the Settlement Agreement is subject to the
15 hearing of any objections to the Settlement.

16

2. Pending the determination of the fairness of the Settlement Agreement, all further

17 litigation of the case is stayed.

18

3.

The Notice of Settlement attached hereto as Exhibit B is approved and shall be

19 distributed to the class in accordance with the notice plan as set forth in Section 9 of the
20
Settlement Agreement, entitled "Notice to Class." All written objections must be received by 21

22 class counsel no later than ten days before the fairness hearing, and filed with the court by class

23 counsel no later than seven days before the fairness hearing.

24

4. A Fairness Hearing for Final Approval ofthe Settlement shall be set for

25 _ _ _2011 at _ _.m. in this Courtroom. Not less than seven (7) days prior to the Final
26
Approval Hearing, Class Counsel will submit their Request For Final Approval ofthe 27

28

2

NO. C-08-2301 SBA

!PROPOSED) ORDER RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 31 of 41

1 Settlement.
2

3 IT IS SO ORDERED
4

5

6 Dated this __ day of _______, 2011. 7

8

9

Hon. Sandra Brown Armstrong

United States District Court, Northern District of California 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

)PROPOSED) ORDER RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 32 of 41

1 (Counsel listed on next page)

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
8 COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of
9 themselves and all others similarly situated,

10

Plaintiffs,

v.

11

CITY OF ANTIOCH, 12

Defendant. 13

No. C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Date: _ _ _ _ _, 2011

Time:

.m.

Courtroom: The Hon. Sandra Brown Armstrong

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED[ ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 33 of 41

1 Impact Fund
2 BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
bseligman@impactfund.org 3 JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 110817)
125 University Avenue, Suite 102 4 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 510.845.3473 5 Facsimile: 510.845.3654
6 Bingham McCutchen LLP FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844)
7 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111
8 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286
9 Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights
10 of the San Francisco Bay Area 11 OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 12 San Francisco, CA 941 05
Telephone: 415.543.9444 13
American Civil Liberties Union 14 Foundation of Northern California
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957) 15 39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111 16 Telephone: 415.621.2493
17 Public Advocates, Inc. RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN 139619)
18 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105
19 Telephone: 415.431.7430
20 Covington & Burling LLP
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN 172732) 21 hgilliam@cov.com
One Front Street
22 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.591.6000
23 Facsimile: 415.591.6091
24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Class
25

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher LLP THOMAS G. BEATTY (SBN 75794) JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 55632) 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.939.5530 Facsimile: 925.939.0203
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANTIOCH

26

27

28
NO.: C"-08-2301 SBA
[PROPOSEDI ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 34 of 41

1

2

The parties have made an unopposed application for final approval of the Settlement

3 Agreement which this Court preliminarily approved on ____, 2011. The Court has read and
4 carefully considered the Agreement and the exhibits appended thereto (attached hereto as Exhibit
5
1), as well as the briefs and arguments of counsel.
6

7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

8

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and all matters

9 relating thereto, and over all parties to this action.

10

2. The Notice given to class members pursuant to this Court's Order Granting

11 Preliminary Approval constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was
12
accomplished in all material respects, and fully met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and
13

14 due process.

15

3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), this Court grants final approval to the

16 Settlement Agreement and the settlement set forth therein, and orders the parties to implement,

17 and comply with, its terms. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
18 in all respects. The Court specifically finds that settlement is rationally related to the strength of 19
plaintiffs' claims given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. This 20
Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of arms' -length negotiation between 21
22 experienced counsel representing the interests of the class and defendants, after thorough factual
23 and legal investigation. There was no finding of intentional discrimination in this lawsuit.

24

4. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own

25 attorneys' fees and costs, except as provided by the Agreement and the Court's orders. 26

27

28

2

NO.: C-08-2JOI SBA

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 35 of 41

1

5. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement for three years following

2 the entry of this Final Approval Order. The Court appoints Magistrate Judge Corley under Fed. 3
R. Civ. P. 53 to act as a Magistrate Judge to consider claims of violations of the Agreement. 4

5 IT IS SO ORDERED
6

7

8 Dated this __ day of _______, 2011.
9

10

11 Hon. Sandra Brown Armstrong

12

United States District Court, Northern District of California

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

[PROPOSED) ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 36 of 41

1 Impact Fund BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
2 bseligman@impactfund.org JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 110817)
3 125 University Avenue, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710
4 Telephone: 510.845.3473 Facsimile: 510.845.3654
5 Bingham McCutchen LLP
6 FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844) Three Embarcadero Center
7 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.393.2000
8 Facsimile: 415.393.2286

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher THOMAS G. BEATTY (SBN 75794) JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 55632) 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.939.5530 Facsimile: 925.939.0203
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANTIOCH

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Class

10 [Additional Counsel Listed on Page 2]

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15

SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY 16 RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and 17 ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
18

Plaintiffs,

19

v.

No. C-08-2301 SBA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

20 CITY OF ANTIOCH,

21

Defendant.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
NO.. C-OH-2301 SBA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 37 of 41

1
IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAFEFULL Y 2
To: All African-Americans who have held or currently hold Section 8 housing vouchers in 3 the City of Antioch:

4

This Notice is being given by Order of the Court to individuals who may be members of

5 a class of current and former African-American Section 8 households affected by the settlement
6
of a class action lawsuit called Williams, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., Case Number C08-230 I 7

8 SBA (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California).

9

The lawsuit claims that the City of Antioch and its Police Department discriminated

10 against African-American Section 8 families based on their race and Section 8 status. The City of

11 Antioch has denied all wrongdoing. There was no finding of intentional discrimination in this

12
lawsuit.

13 The District Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the settlement on _ _ _ _ __
14

at 15

.m. in Courtroom _ , at the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 450

16 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

17

This hearing is referred to as the settlement hearing or the fairness hearing. If the

18 district court approves this settlement, all claims by class members against the City of Antioch

19 for injunctive relief based on claims of discriminatory policing by the Antioch Police
20 Department will be finally resolved in accordance with the terms ofthe settlement. However,
21
the court's approval of this settlement will not affect the right of class members, other than the 22
23 five named plaintiffs, to assert claims for damages against the City.

24

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of:

25

•

The nature of the lawsuit, and who is a member of the class;

26

•

Your right to object to the settlement;

27

•

A description of the terms of the proposed settlement; and

28

NO .. C-08-2301 SBA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 38 of 41

1

•

How to find out more information about the proposed settlement.

2

THE LAWSUIT AND THE CLASS

3 The lawsuit was filed as a class action in July 2008 by five African-American women
4 participating in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The lawsuit claims that the
5

6 City of Antioch and its Police Department discriminated against African-American Section 8

7 families based on their race and Section 8 status. The plaintiffs sought damages, injunctive

8 relief, and attorneys' fees.

9

On September 2, 2010, the Court ruled that the claims for injunctive relief could go

10 forward on behalf of a class defined as "all African-Americans who have held, currently hold, or
11 may hold Section 8 housing vouchers, and all members of their households, who reside, have
12 resided or will reside, in the City of Antioch." The Court also ruled, however, that the named
13
14 plaintiffs could not seek damages on behalf of the other class members.

15

The Court's order designated the following lawyers to serve as counsel to the class

16 ("Class Counsel") in this action:

17 Impact Fund 18 BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
bseligrnan@impactfund.org 19 JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 11 0817)
125 University Avenue, Suite 102 20 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 510.845.3473 21
22 Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
23 OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 24 San Francisco, CA 941 05
25 Telephone: 415.543.9444

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation ofNorthern California ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957) 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.621.2493
Public Advocates, Inc. RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN 139619) 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.431.7430

26 Bingham McCutchen LLP
27 FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844) abigail.slonecker@bingham.com
28 Three Embarcadero Center

Covington & Burling LLP HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN 172732) hgilliam@cov.com

2

NO .. C-08-2301 SBA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 39 of 41

1 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.393.2000
2 Facsimile: 415.393.2286
3

One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.591.6000 Facsimile: 415.591.6091

4

The Court's order appointed named plaintiffs Santeya Danyell Williams, Mary Ruth

5 Scott, Karen Latreece Coleman, Priscilla Bunton, and Alyce Denise Payne to serve as Class
6 Representatives.
7 WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER?
8 You do not need to do anything if you are satisfied with the settlement. Ifyou are
9
10 dissatisfied with any terms of the proposed settlement described below, you may comment or

11 object to the settlement. If you wish to have your comments or objections considered at the

12 settlement fairness hearing, you must send your comments or objection in writing, on or before

13 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to Class Counsel and counsel for the City of Antioch at:

14 The Impact Fund

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher

15

Attn. James V. Fitzgerald, III

125 University Ave., Suite 102 and 1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288

16 Berkeley, California 94710

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

17

If you do not make your objections by that date, you will lose the right to object. Both

18 the envelope and your comments or objection should include the name of the case and the case
19
number. If you do so comment or object, you also have the right to appear personally or through
20

21 an attorney at the settlement hearing to present your comments or objection to the Court. Except

22 with special permission of the Court, you will not be permitted to object or comment at the

23 hearing if your comments or objection are not received in writing by - - - - - - - - -

24

If, after the fairness hearing, the Court rejects the settlement, it will be voided and

25
litigation of the case will continue. However, ifthat happens, there is no assurance: (a) that any
26 decision at trial would be in favor of class members; (b) that a favorable trial decision, if any,
27

28

3

NO.. C -08-2301 SBA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 40 of 41

1 would be as favorable to the class members as this settlement; or (c) that any such favorable trial

2 decision would be upheld if any appeal was filed.
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
4 The Settlement Agreement provides, in summary, that:
5 1. The City of Antioch will not publicly identify African American Section 8 recipients
6

7

(except as allowed for in the next paragraph).

8

2. APD will send copies of any communications it sends to the Housing Authority of

9

Contra Costa County regarding complaints about identified Section 8 recipients to the

10

Impact Fund for three years.

11
3. The City of Antioch will not retaliate against the five named Plaintiffs or their family
12
p1embers approved to live in their household by the Housing Authority. 13

14

4. The City of Antioch will not focus on African American Section 8 recipients on either

15

the basis of their race or Section 8 status in its policing efforts, except when race is used

16

specifically to identify a suspect.

17

5. The Plaintiffs will dismiss this case within 30 days after the Court approves the

18

settlement.

19
6. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement for three years. 20
7. The City of Antioch will pay $180,000.00, to be divided equally among the five named 21

22

Plaintiffs.

23

8. The City of Antioch will pay $180,000.00 for costs and attorneys' fees of Plaintiffs'

24

lawyers.

25

9. Plaintiffs release and settle all of their claims against the City. Class members release

26 class claims for injunctive relief but do not release any claims for damages.

27

28

4

NO.: C-08-2301 SBA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 4:08-cv-02301-SBA Document 219 Filed 12/20/11 Page 41 of 41

1

HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT

2

If you have questions about the proposed settlement agreement, or would like to obtain a

3 copy of it, you may contact the lawyers who represent the class, at the address below:

4

The Impact Fund

5

125 University Ave., suite 102

Berkeley, California 94710 6

7

(510)845-3473, ext. 308

8 There will be no charge.

9

Do not contact the district court or the judge.

10

11 Dated this __ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2011.
12

13

14

Clerk of the Court

15

United States District Court- Northern District of California

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

NO. C-08-2301 SBA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 
 Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 1 of 29
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,PROTO,REFRAN >REFSET−JSC
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:08−cv−02301−SBA

Williams, et al v. City of Antioch, et al Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Referred to: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (Settlement) Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/02/2008 Date Terminated: 04/02/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Santeya Danyell Williams

represented by Brad Seligman Impact Fund 125 University Avenue Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 510−845−3473 ext 304 Fax: 510−845−3654 Email: bseligman@impactfund.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Matt Levin Bay Area Legal Aid Contra Costa County 1025 Macdonald Avenue P.O. Box 2289 Richmond, CA 94801 510−233−9954 Fax: 510−236−6846 Email: dlevin@baylegal.org TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Abigail Conzatti Slonecker Bingham McCutchen LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 415−393−2268 Fax: 415−393−2286 Email: abigail.slonecker@bingham.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Lawrence Schlosser ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: aschlosser@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alvaro Damian Soria Impact Fund 125 University Avenue Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 510−845−3473 Fax: 510−845−3654

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 2 of 29
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Ivan Segura ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94117 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: asegura@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles D Forster , Jr Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights 131 Steuart St Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−543−9444 Fax: 415−543−0296 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Haywood S. Gilliam , Jr. Covington &Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−6000 Fax: 415−591−6091 Email: hgilliam@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Holland Tarricone Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen and Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763−9800 Fax: (510) 835−1417 Email: jtarricone@gdblegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jocelyn Dion Larkin Impact Fund 125 University Avenue Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 510−845−3473 x306 Fax: 510−845−3654 Email: jlarkin@impactfund.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Rose Siegfried Bay Area Legal Aid Contra Costa Regional Office 1025 Macdonald Avenue Richmond, CA 94801 510−233−9954 Fax: 510−899−6253 Email: ksiegfried@baylegal.org TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kendra Fox−Davis Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 3 of 29

131 Steuart Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−543−9444 Fax: 415−543−0296 Email: kfoxdavis@lccr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Natividad Rodriguez , Attorney at Law Public Advocates Inc 131 Steuart #300 San Francisco, CA 94105−1241 415−431−7430 Fax: 415−431−1048 Email: mrodriguez@publicadvocates.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Oren M. Sellstrom Bay Area Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights 131 Steuart St Ste 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−543−9444 Fax: 415−543−0296 Email: osellstrom@lccr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Anthony Marcantonio Public Advocates, Inc. 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−431−7430 Fax: 415−431−1048 Email: rmarcantonio@publicadvocates.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert P. Capistrano Bay Area Legal Aid 1735 Telegraph Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 663−4755 x5212 Fax: (510) 663−4711 Email: bcapistrano@baylegal.org TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susun Kim Bay Area Legal Aid 1025 Macdonald Ave Richmond, CA 94801 510−233−9954 Email: sukim@baylegal.org TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mary Ruth Scott

represented by Brad Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Matt Levin (See above for address)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 4 of 29

TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Abigail Conzatti Slonecker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles D Forster , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Haywood S. Gilliam , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jocelyn Dion Larkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Rose Siegfried (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kendra Fox−Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Natividad Rodriguez , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Oren M. Sellstrom (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Anthony Marcantonio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert P. Capistrano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susun Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alyce Denise Payne

represented by Brad Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Matt Levin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 5 of 29

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Abigail Conzatti Slonecker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alvaro Damian Soria (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles D Forster , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Haywood S. Gilliam , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jocelyn Dion Larkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Rose Siegfried (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kendra Fox−Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Natividad Rodriguez , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Oren M. Sellstrom (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Anthony Marcantonio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert P. Capistrano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susun Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Karen Latreece Coleman

represented by Brad Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 6 of 29

David Matt Levin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Abigail Conzatti Slonecker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alvaro Damian Soria (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles D Forster , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Haywood S. Gilliam , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jocelyn Dion Larkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Rose Siegfried (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kendra Fox−Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Natividad Rodriguez , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Oren M. Sellstrom (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Anthony Marcantonio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert P. Capistrano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susun Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Priscilla Bunton

represented by Brad Seligman (See above for address)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 7 of 29
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Abigail Conzatti Slonecker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alvaro Damian Soria (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles D Forster , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Haywood S. Gilliam , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jocelyn Dion Larkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kendra Fox−Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Natividad Rodriguez , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oren M. Sellstrom (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Anthony Marcantonio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Antioch

represented by James V. Fitzgerald , III McNamara Dodge Ney Beatty Slattery Pfalzer Borges &Brothers 1211 Newell Avenue Post Office Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 939−5330 Fax: (925) 939−0203 Email: james.fitzgerald@mcnamaralaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah G. Blechman McNamara Dodge Ney Beatty Slattery Pfalzer Borges &Brothers LLP 1211 Newell Avenue Post Office Box 5288

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 8 of 29

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 939−5330 Fax: (925) 939−0203 Email: noah.blechman@mcnamaralaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas G. Beatty McNamara Dodge Ney Beatty Slattery 1211 Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−939−5330 Fax: 925−939−0203 Email: thomas.beatty@mcnamaralaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Antioch Police Department

Defendant
James Hyde Chief of Police, Antioch Police Department, in his official capacity

Defendant Sergeant Mitch Schwitters

Defendant Corporal Steve Bias

Defendant Officer Desmond Bittner

Defendant Officer William Dillard, II

Interested Party
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County

represented by Julie Keiko Kobayashi Contra Costa County Counsel's Office 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 335−1800 Fax: (925) 646−1078 Email: kkoba@cc.cccounty.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Lawrence Geiger County Counsel's Office County of Contra Costa 651 Pine St., 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94533−1229 925−335−1800 Fax: 925−646−1078 Email: tgeig@cc.cccounty.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 9 of 29

05/02/2008
05/02/2008
05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/15/2008 05/23/2008
05/30/2008 07/11/2008
07/14/2008 07/16/2008 07/16/2008 07/18/2008 07/22/2008 07/23/2008

1 COMPLAINT against City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, James Hyde, Mitch Schwitters, Steve Bias, Desmond Bittner, William Dillard, II ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 44611002144). Filed by Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Antioch Section 8 Families for Fair Housing, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 8/4/2008. Case Management Conference set for 8/11/2008 at 4:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order, # 2 Standing Order for All Judges)(rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Karen Latreece Coleman. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Alyce Denise Payne. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Mary Ruth Scott. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Santeya Danyell Williams. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
7 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATIONS. Signed by Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 5/15/2008. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2008) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
8 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Antioch Section 8 Families for Fair Housing, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams.. (Levin, David) (Filed on 5/23/2008) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
9 WITHDRAWAL of In Forma Pauperis Applications Filed by Plaintiffs Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman &Santeya Danyell Williams. (Levin, David) (Filed on 5/30/2008) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
10 Proposed Order Substituting Counsel for Plaintiffs by Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Antioch Section 8 Families for Fair Housing, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Levin, David) (Filed on 7/11/2008) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
11 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 7/14/2008. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2008) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Complaint against City of Antioch. Filed bySanteya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/16/2008) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
14 SUMMONS on First Amended Complaint Issued as to Defendant City of Antioch. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/2008)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Santeya Danyell Williams re 12 Amended Complaint Proof of Service (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/18/2008) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
15 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 7/22/2008) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
16 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2008) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 10 of 29

07/23/2008
08/06/2008
08/22/2008 08/28/2008 09/15/2008
09/15/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008
09/29/2008 10/01/2008 10/02/2008
10/10/2008 10/14/2008
10/15/2008
10/21/2008 10/21/2008 10/30/2008

17 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Judge Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 7/23/08. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2008) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Statement due by 9/22/2008. Case Management Conference set for 10/2/2008 03:00 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 8/6/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2008) Modified on 8/7/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2008)
19 ORDER denying motion to relate cases. Signed by Judge Illston on 8/21/08. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2008) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
20 ANSWER to Amended Complaint byCity of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 8/28/2008) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
21 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d), Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch, Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 9/15/2008) Modified on 9/16/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2008)
22 Certificate of Interested Entities by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
23 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 9/29/08 at 2:00 p.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2008) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
24 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 9/22/2008) Modified on 9/23/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/22/2008)
ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by HAH on 9/29/08. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
25 NOTICE of Association of Counsel, filed by Abigail Conzatti Nichols (Nichols, Abigail) (Filed on 10/1/2008) Modified on 10/2/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
26 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 10/2/2008 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG (Date Filed: 10/2/2008). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/27/2009 01:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2009 01:00 PM. () (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/2/2008) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
27 Letter from James V. Fitzgerald, III and Brad Seligman. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 10/10/2008) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
28 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge James Larson for Settlement. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 10/14/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2008) Modified on 2/24/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/14/2008)
29 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options, filed by Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch, Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/15/2008) Modified on 10/15/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2008)
30 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER. Signed by Judge James Larson on 10/21/08. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2008) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 30 Settlement Conference set for 1/13/2009 10:00 AM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2008) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
31 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Continuing Settlement Conference Before Chief Magistrate Judge Larson, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 11 of 29

11/14/2008
11/14/2008 12/04/2008
12/08/2008 12/08/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 01/05/2009 01/06/2009 01/08/2009 01/26/2009
01/26/2009
01/26/2009

Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/30/2008) Modified on 10/31/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2008)
32 ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TO MARCH 24, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. re 31 Stipulation, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Santeya Danyell Williams. Signed by Judge James Larson on 11/14/08. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 32 Settlement Conference set for 3/24/2009 10:00 AM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
33 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 12/4/2008) Modified on 12/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2008)
34 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for ALL Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/8/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for Discovery (cmw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
35 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 12/10/2008. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) Modified on 12/11/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2008)
36 ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 12/10/08. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
37 STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Document Retention, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Nichols, Abigail) (Filed on 1/5/2009) Modified on 1/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/2009)
38 STIPULATION AND ORDER re Document Retention. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 1/6/2009. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2009) Modified on 1/7/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/06/2009)
39 NOTICE of Payment of Deposition Costs from the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 1/8/2009) Modified on 1/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2009)
40 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents (HACCC), filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. Motion Hearing set for 3/3/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 1/26/2009) Modified on 1/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/2009)
41 Declaration of Brad Seligman in Support of 40 Motion to Compel Production of Documents (HACCC) filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena to HACCC, # 2 Exhibit Oct. 8, 2008 Letter re Production, # 3 Exhibit Protective Order, # 4 Exhibit E−mail Correspondence with K. Kobayashi)(Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 1/26/2009) Modified on 1/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/2009)
42 Proposed Order re 40 Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (HACCC) filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 1/26/2009) Modified on 1/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 12 of 29

02/09/2009 02/09/2009
02/09/2009 02/17/2009 02/20/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 03/03/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009
03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009

43 Memorandum in Opposition re 40 Motion to Compel filed by Housing Authority of Contra Costa County. (Geiger, Thomas) (Filed on 2/9/2009) Modified on 2/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
44 DECLARATION of Keiko Kobayashi in Support of 43 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Housing Authority of Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 43 ) (Geiger, Thomas) (Filed on 2/9/2009) Modified on 2/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
45 Proposed Order re 40 Motion to Compel by Housing Authority of Contra Costa County. (Geiger, Thomas) (Filed on 2/9/2009) Modified on 2/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
46 Reply Memorandum re 40 Motion to Compel filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
47 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order re Confidential Information, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 2/20/2009) Modified on 2/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2009)
48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL, filed by Housing Authority of Contra Costa County. (Kobayashi, Julie) (Filed on 2/26/2009) Modified on 2/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2009)
49 AMENDED STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER: Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 2/26/09. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2009) Modified on 2/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2009)
50 Minute Entry: Hearing held on 3/3/2009 before Elizabeth D. Laporte re Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (HACCC) 40 . (Court Reporter Connie Kuhl) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/3/2009) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
51 Letter to Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson re Request to Continue Settlement Conference, from Brad Seligman, dated 03/04/09. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 3/9/2009) Modified on 3/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2009)
52 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Modifying Discovery Dates, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 3/9/2009) Modified on 3/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2009)
53 ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to 06/12/09 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge James Larson on 3/10/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
54 Proposed Order re 40 Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (HACCC) filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
55 STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING Discovery Dates. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 3/10/09. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
56 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, GRANTING 40 Motion to Compel Production of Documents. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: re 53 Settlement Conference set for 6/12/2009 10:00 AM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 13 of 29

05/07/2009 05/11/2009 05/21/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/27/2009 05/27/2009 06/05/2009 06/09/2009 07/15/2009
07/15/2009

57 NOTICE of Payment of Deposition Costs from the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 5/7/2009) Modified on 5/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2009)
58 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Modifying Discovery and Class Certification Dates, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 5/11/2009) Modified on 5/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2009)
59 STIPULATION AND ORDER: Modifying Motion Hearing date to 1/12/2010 01:00 PM. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/20/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2009) Modified on 5/22/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2009)
60 *** FILED IN ERROR. NO NEW DOCUMENT. *** Declaration of Dr. Mia White in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed byPriscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 5/26/2009) Modified on 5/26/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
61 Letter to Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson re Request to Continue Settlement Conference, from Brad Seligman, dated 05/26/09 (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 5/26/2009) Modified on 5/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
62 ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to 08/18/09 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson on 5/27/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2009) Modified on 5/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: re 62 Settlement Conference set for 8/18/2009 10:00 AM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
63 ASSOCIATION of Counsel of Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Alyce Denise Payne, Karen Latreece Coleman, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Gilliam, Haywood) (Filed on 6/5/2009) Modified on 6/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2009)
64 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Sellstrom, Oren) (Filed on 6/9/2009) Modified on 6/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
65 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. Motion Hearing set for 8/4/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/15/2009) Modified on 7/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)
66 Declaration of Brad Seligman in Support of 65 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit Defendant's Responses to Second Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit 06.04.09 Seligman Meet &Confer Letter, # 4 Exhibit 06.25.09 Beatty Meet &Confer Response, # 5 Exhibit 06.30.09 Seligman E−mail, # 6 Exhibit 07.06.09 Larkin E−mail, # 7 Exhibit 07.07.09 Petersen Meet &Confer Response, # 8 Exhibit 07.09.09 Petersen Meet &Confer Response, # 9 Exhibit 07.10.09 Larkin E−mail, # 10 Exhibit 07.10.09 Petersen E−mail, # 11 Exhibit 07.13.09 Beatty Meet &Confer Response, # 12 Exhibit Defendant's Amended Responses to Second Request for Production of Documents, # 13 Exhibit Order Granting Amended Stipulation re Confidential Information, # 14 Exhibit Excerpt of Deposition of Mitch Schwitters, # 15 Exhibit 09.22.08 Joint Case Management Conference Statement)(Related document(s) 65 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/15/2009) Modified on 7/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 14 of 29

07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009 07/22/2009 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009
07/28/2009

67 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 68 . *** STIPULATION re 65 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities Requesting Shortened Time by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/15/2009) Modified on 7/16/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)
68 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Shortening Time re 65 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 67 filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/15/2009) Modified on 7/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)
69 Declaration of Jocelyn D. Larkin in Support of 68 Stipulation and Proposed Order Requesting Shortened Time filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 68 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/15/2009) Modified on 7/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)
70 STIPULATION AND ORDER [AS MODIFIED] To Shorten Time re Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's Opening Brief due 07/15/09; Defendant's Opposition due 07/22/09; Plaintiff's Reply due 07/28/09 at 12:00 PM; Proposed Hearing date 08/04/09; Discovery cut−off 08/21/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 7/17/09. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2009)
71 WITHDRAWAL OF STIPULATION re Confidential Information, Personnel and Complaint Documents, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Sellstrom, Oren) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2009)
72 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Sellstrom, Oren) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2009)
73 Memorandum in Opposition re 65 Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed by City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Thomas G. Beatty Declaration, # 2 McConnell Declaration, # 3 Johnson Declaration)(Beatty, Thomas) (Filed on 7/22/2009) Modified on 7/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2009)
74 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Sellstrom, Oren) (Filed on 7/23/2009) Modified on 7/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2009)
75 Reply Memorandum re 65 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/28/2009) Modified on 7/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
76 Declaration of Jason Tarricone in Support of 65 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 10.30.06 E−mail from Dillard to APD, # 3 Exhibit 12.16.07 E−mail from Kint to Schwitters, # 4 Exhibit 1.25.07 E−mail from Schwitters to APD, # 5 Exhibit Excerpt of Deposition of M. Schwitters, Vol. II, # 6 Exhibit CAT Highlights, October 2006, # 7 Exhibit Excerpt of Deposition of M. Schwitters, Vol. I)(Related document(s) 65 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/28/2009) Modified on 7/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
77 Declaration of Tony Dang in Support of 65 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott,

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 15 of 29

07/28/2009
08/04/2009 08/05/2009 08/06/2009 08/07/2009 08/11/2009
08/11/2009 08/11/2009 08/12/2009
08/13/2009
08/13/2009 08/18/2009 10/26/2009

Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Amended Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit CAT Locations and Owner Description, Bates Nos. D0024644−D0024650)(Related document(s) 65 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 7/28/2009) Modified on 7/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
78 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte GRANTING 74 Stipulation Regarding Confidential Information, Personnel And Complaint Documents. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 7/28/09. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2009) Modified on 7/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
79 Minute Entry: Hearing held on 8/4/2009 before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte GRANTING IN PART 65 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. (Court Reporter: Debra Pas) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/4/2009) Modified on 8/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2009)
80 ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 65 Motion to Compel (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2009) Modified on 8/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/05/2009)
81 Letter from Brad Seligman Requesting Approval of Meet &Confer Agreements. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 8/6/2009) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
82 ORDER APPROVING AGREEMENTS re 81 Letter filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Santeya Danyell Williams. Signed by Judge James Larson on 8/7/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
83 ***DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY ORDER OF THE COURT, PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT 87 ***
(Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/11/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2009)
84 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to remove incorrectly filed Document No. 83, filed by City of Antioch, Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2009)
85 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document No. 83 filed by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 8/11/2009) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
86 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Modifying Expert Disclosure Dates, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
87 STIPULATION AND ORDER: to remove the incorrectly filed document identified as document no. 83 . Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 8/13/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/2009)
88 STIPULATION AND ORDER: to modify expert disclosure dates. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 8/13/09. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2009) Modified on 8/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/2009)
89 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference was held on 8/18/09. The case did not settle. (Date Filed: 8/18/2009). (Court Reporter n/a.) (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/18/2009) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
90 MOTION to Certify Class; and Supporting Points and Authorities, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2010 01:00 PM in

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 16 of 29

10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009
10/26/2009
10/26/2009

Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
91 Proposed Order re 90 Motion to Certify Class, by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
92 Declaration of Brad Seligman in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
93 Declaration of Jocelyn Larkin in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Excerpts from the Deposition of Gary Gilbert, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, Excerpts from the Deposition of Rudy Tamayo, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, Excerpts from the Deposition of James Jakel, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 4, Excerpts from the Deposition of Donald Freitas, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 5, Excerpts from the Deposition of Arne Simonsen, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 6, Excerpts from the Deposition of James Hyde, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 7, Excerpts from the Deposition of Mark Moczulski; Ex. 8, Excerpts from the Deposition of Stephen McConnell)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
94 EXHIBITS 9−15 re 93 Declaration of Jocelyn Larkin in Support Ex. 9, Excerpts from the Deposition of Mitch Schwitters; Ex. 10, Excerpts from the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Stephen McConnell filed byPriscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 11, Excerpts from the Deposition of Desmond Bittner, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 12, Excerpts from the Deposition of Alan Cantando; Ex. 13, Excerpts from the Deposition of Steven Bias, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 14, Excerpts from the Deposition of Ryan Geis; Ex. 15, Excerpts from the Deposition of Brian Kalinowski, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 16, 11/14/06 Tamayo Rpt. to Bd. of Commissioners, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 17, UCBN Mission Statement; Ex. 18, 6/23/06 Freitas−Gilbert E−Mail; Ex. 19, 9/26/06 Tamayo Rpt. to Board of Commissioners; Ex. 20, 4/15/07 Death of Antioch Citizen E−Mail)(Related document(s) 93 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
95 EXHIBITS 21−46, re 93 Declaration of Jocelyn Larkin in Support Ex. 21, 4/15/07 "Luxury Homes" Citizen E−mail; Ex. 22, 6/13/07 "Luxury Homes" Citizen Petition ; Ex. 23, 2/23/07 News Article on Hyde Presentation; Ex. 24, 10/19/06 Hyde−Jakel E−mail filed byPriscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 25, 1/27/07 Hyde Quality of Life Presentation, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 26, 1/27/07 Hyde Presentation (including map of Section 8 residents concentration in Antioch); Ex. 27, 9/26/06 Housing Auth. Powerpoint, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 28, June 2009 Antioch "Person Crime" Map; Ex. 29, 11/18/06 Gilbert Contra Costa Times Op−Ed; Ex. 30, 10/23/06 City Officials−HUD Mtg. Notes; Ex. 31, 10/17/06 McConnell−Jakel E−Mail; Ex. 32, Anti−Section 8 Flyer; Ex. 33, 11/28/06 McConnell Memo; Ex. 34, 7/12/07 Schwitters−McConnell E−Mail; Ex. 35, 9/4/06 Dillard−Gilbert E−Mail, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 36, C.A.T. Case Flow Chart; Ex. 37, 6/4/07 Schwitters−Hildebrand E−Mail; Ex. 38, 12/18/07 County Counsel Letter; Ex. 39, Sept. 2006 C.A.T. Highlights, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 40, 7/11/06 Antioch City Council Meeting Minutes; Ex. 41, 4/28/08 Schwitters−Gilbert E−Mail; Ex. 42, 8/9/06 Gilbert−Bittner E−Mail; Ex. 43, 3/9/07 Rezentes−Bittner E−Mail; Ex. 44, 10/9/07 Bias−Schwitters E−Mail; Ex. 45, 12/14/06 Schwitters E−Mail to APD; Ex. 46, APD Door Hanger)(Related document(s) 93 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
96 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Modifying Class Certification Briefing Dates, by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Signature

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 17 of 29

10/26/2009
10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009

Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Stipulation Signature Page)(Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
97 EXHIBITS 47−67 re 93 Declaration of Jocelyn Larkin in Support Ex. 47, C.A.T. Monthly Reports July 2006, June 2008 filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 48, 7/10/07 Bias−McConnell E−Mail; Ex. 49, 9/26/06 Bittner Event Report ; Ex. 50, 6/12/08 Gilbert E−Mail, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 51, 2/16/07 Hyde E−Mail Re Citizen Complaint ; Ex. 52, C.A.T. Webpage; Ex. 53, 8/9/06 Schwitters−APD E−Mail Re Section 8 Citizen Complaint Forms; Ex. 54, 2/18/07 McConnell Memo; Ex. 55, 10/16/07 McConnell−Hildebrand E−mail, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 56, 10/4/07 Schwitters−McConnell E−Mail; Ex. 57, C.A.T. Cases Referred to Housing Authority; Ex. 58, 10/31/06 Cantando E−Mail; Ex. 59, 12/18/07 Resp. to NAACP Req. for Rev. and Inv. of Alleged Section 8 Viol. ; Ex. 60, 7/5/07 APD Landlord Letter, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 61, Public Advocates/Bay Area Legal Aid Rept., # 5 Exhibit Ex. 62, 6/27/07 Bittner Letter to Z. McNab; Ex. 63, Declaration of Onita Tuggles, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 64, Excerpts from the Deposition of Onita Tuggles; Ex. 65, Excerpts from the Deposition of Zanetta McNab, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 66, 9/25/2007 City Council Mtg. Minutes; Ex. 67, Def. Interr. Responses, No. 15)(Related document(s) 93 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
98 Declaration of Tony Dang in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, Antioch Data Summary)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
99 Declaration of Barry Krisberg, Ph. D in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, B. Krisberg Resume; Ex. B, C. Hartney Resume)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
100 Declaration of Priscilla Bunton in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 9/26/06 APD Referral Letter; Ex. B, 3/22/07 Proposed Termination Letter; Ex. C, Excerpt of Termination Hearing Transcript; Ex. D, Court Decision Overturning Section 8 Termination)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
101 Declaration of Santeya Williams in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 3/14/07 Proposed Termination Letter; Ex. B, 3/28/07 APD Letter to Landlord; Ex. C, 4/4/07 Notice of Termination Hearing; Ex. D, 4/30/07 Termination Hearing Decision)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
102 Declaration of Karen Coleman in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 5/17/07 Letter to Neighbor; Ex. B, 6/4/07 Landlord Authorization Adding T. Coleman to Lease; Ex. C, 6/29/07 Housing Authority Authorization Adding T. Coleman to Lease; Ex. D, 7/5/07 APD Letter to Landlord; Ex. E, Landlord Letter to APD; Ex. F, 12/7/07 Submission of Tort Claims to APD; Ex. G, 2/19/08 Antioch City Council Rejection of Claims)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
103 Declaration of Mary Ruth Scott in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott,

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 18 of 29

10/26/2009
10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009
10/26/2009 10/26/2009

Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
104 Declaration of Alyce Payne in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 3/28/07 APD Letter to Landlord; Ex. B, 3/21/07 APD Referral Letter; Ex. C, 3/28/07 Proposed Termination Letter; Ex. D, 5/31/07 Housing Authority Letter Rescinding Proposed Termination; Ex. E, 10/4/07 APD Letter to Landlord; Ex. F, 2/5/08 Landlord Notice of Sale of Property; Ex. G, 9/12/07 Letter Submitting Tort Claims to APD; Ex. H, 10/29/07 Antioch City Council Letter Rejecting Claims)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
105 Declaration of Che Alexander in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 4/07 Letter from Neighbor)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
106 Declaration of Thomas Coleman in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
107 Declaration of Uzuri Day−Bennett in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
108 Declaration of Saieda Evans in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 3/22/06 Proposed Termination Letter; Ex. B, 7/31/06 Housing Authority Letter &Notice of Termination)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
109 Declaration of Quinetta Gray in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 6/12/08 APD Letter to Landlord; Ex. B, 7/2/08 APD Referral Letter)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
110 Declaration of Marvisa Joseph in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 7/1/06 APD Citation; Ex. B, 11/27/06 Proposed Termination Letter, Calls for Service Printout Enclosed; Ex. C, 11/29/06 M. Joseph Letter to Housing Authority; Ex. D, I. Joseph Letter to Housing Authority, Photocopy of Driver's License Enclosed; Ex. E, 1/3/07 Housing Authority Notice of Termination Hearing)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
111 Declaration of Nathaniel Kearns in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
112 Declaration of Rebecca Lewis in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 19 of 29

10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009

10/26/2009)
113 Declaration of Nicole Mays in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
114 Declaration of Tamula Murphy in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
115 Declaration of Deliah Rogers in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
116 Declaration of Shannon Taylor in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 3/28/07 APD Letter to Landlord)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
117 Declaration of Lola Y. Thomas in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 9/7/06 APD Referral Letter; Ex. B, 9/12/06 APD Letter to Landlord)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
118 Declaration of Tia Thomas in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
119 Declaration of Rosalind Threets in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
120 Declaration of Dr. Mia White in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
121 Declaration of Charles Glasper in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 5/1/08 East County NAACP Letter to Antioch City Council ; Ex. B, 9/25/2007 City Council Mtg. Minutes)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
122 Declaration of Eddy Ong in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A, 9/21/06 APD Letter to Landlord)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
123 Declaration of Riaz Patras in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, 4/9/07 APD Letter to

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 20 of 29

10/26/2009
10/26/2009 11/16/2009 11/19/2009 11/19/2009 11/19/2009 11/20/2009
11/20/2009
12/01/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009

Landlord)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
124 MOTION to Bifurcate and Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
125 Proposed Order re 124 Motion to Bifurcate by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 10/26/2009) Modified on 10/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
126 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/13/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
127 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by City of Antioch. (Beatty, Thomas) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
128 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support of 127 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 127 ) (Beatty, Thomas) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
129 Proposed Order re 127 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by City of Antioch. (Beatty, Thomas) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
130 Memorandum in Opposition re 127 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 11/20/2009) Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2009)
131 DECLARATION of Brad Seligman in Opposition to 127 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 127 ) (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 11/20/2009) Modified on 11/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2009)
132 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 127 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Opposition Brief re Motion for Class Certification (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2009) Modified on 12/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2009)
133 Memorandum in Opposition re 90 MOTION to Certify Class filed byCity of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B−C, # 3 Exhibit D−E, # 4 Exhibit F−H, # 5 Exhibit I−J, # 6 Exhibit K, # 7 Exhibit L, # 8 Exhibit M−N)(Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
135 EXHIBIT P re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
136 EXHIBIT V re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
137 EXHIBIT Y re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 21 of 29

12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009

(Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
138 EXHIBIT Z re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
139 EXHIBIT CC re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
140 EXHIBIT EE re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
141 EXHIBIT FF re 134 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
142 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty (#2) in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
143 Declaration of Roger Henry in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
144 Declaration of Gary Gilbert in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
145 Declaration of Hans Ho in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
146 Declaration of Iris Archuleta in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
147 Declaration of Jesse Zuniga in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
148 Declaration of Kevin Mcilvenna in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
149 Declaration of Traci Cross in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
150 Declaration of Richard L. Word in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
151 Declaration of Joseph J. Callanan in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
152 Declaration of Jim Hyde in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
153 Declaration of Steve McConnell in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 22 of 29

12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009

12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
154 Declaration of Desmond Bittner in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
155 Declaration of Leroy Bloxsom in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
156 Declaration of Danielle Joannides in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
157 Declaration of Brian Withrow in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
158 EXHIBITS re 157 Declaration of Brian Withrow in Support Report filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 157 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
159 Declaration of Kate Petersen in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
160 Declaration of Mitchell E, Schwitters in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
161 EXHIBIT C re 160 Declaration of Mitchell E. Scwitters in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 160 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
162 EXHIBIT D re 160 Declaration of Mitchell E. Schwitters in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 160 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
163 Declaration of Jim Jakel in Support of 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
164 EXHIBIT C re 163 Declaration of Jim Jakel in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I−T)(Related document(s) 163 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
165 EXHIBIT U re 163 Declaration of Jim Jakel in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 163 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
166 EXHIBIT W re 163 Declaration of Jim Jakel in Support filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 163 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009)(Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) Modified on 12/7/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
167 OBJECTIONS to Exhibit 61 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Cert and Motion to Strike by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
168 Proposed Order re 133 Memorandum in Opposition by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
169 Request for Judicial Notice re 133 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 133 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 23 of 29

12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009
12/04/2009
12/04/2009
12/07/2009 12/08/2009 12/09/2009 12/14/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009

(Entered: 12/04/2009)
170 Memorandum in Opposition re 124 MOTION to Bifurcate filed byCity of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
171 Proposed Order re 170 Memorandum in Opposition by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
172 NOTICE by City of Antioch of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil COde Section 52.1 (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
173 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 filed by City of Antioch. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
174 Declaration of James V. Fitzgerald, III in Support of 173 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 173 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
175 Request for Judicial Notice re 173 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 filed byCity of Antioch. (Related document(s) 173 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
176 Proposed Order re 173 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
177 STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Class Certification Reply Brief Length by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Signature Page)(Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 12/7/2009) Modified on 12/8/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2009)
178 ERRATA re 133 Memorandum in Opposition to Page 12 by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/8/2009) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
179 ERRATA re 133 Memorandum in Opposition to Page 20 by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/9/2009) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
180 EXHIBIT O in Support re 134 Declaration in Support, filed by City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O (Continued))(Related document(s) 134 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/14/2009) Modified on 12/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Counsel did not present papers as required by Civil L.R. 3−4) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
181 STIPULATION AND ORDER: Allowing Plaintiffs' reply brief to be 25 pages long. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 12/17/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
182 Reply Memorandum re 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 24 of 29

12/18/2009
12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009

183 Supplemental Declaration of Jocelyn Larkin in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 (Excerpts from the Deposition of Brian Withrow), # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 (Excerpts from the Deposition of Joseph Callanan), # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3 (Excerpts from the Deposition of Priscilla Bunton), # 4 Exhibit Ex. 4 (Excerpts from the Deposition of Desmond Bittner), # 5 Exhibit Ex. 5 (Excerpts from the Deposition of Santeya Williams), # 6 Exhibit Ex. 6 (Transcript of Bittner Recording at K. Coleman Residence), # 7 Exhibit Ex. 7 (Excerpts from the Deposition of Mary Scott))(Related document(s) 90 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
184 Supplemental Declaration of Tony Dang in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dang Supp. Decl., Exs. A−B)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
185 Supplemental Declaration of Barry Krisberg, Ph. D in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
186 Reply Declaration of Lorie A. Fridell in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, Expert Report of Lorie A. Fridell)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
187 Reply Declaration of Rana Sampson in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, Rebuttal Report of Rana Sampson)(Related document(s) 90 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
188 Declaration of Willie Mims in Support of 90 Motion to Certify Class filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
189 Reply Memorandum re 124 Motion to Bifurcate filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
190 Response to 167 Objection and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibit 61 filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
191 MOTION to Strike 151 Declaration in Support, 157 Declaration in Support, 150 Declaration in Support, 158 Exhibits, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (Proposed) Order Granting Motion to Strike Portions of Defense Expert Opinions)(Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
192 Declaration of Richard A. Marcantonio in Support of 191 Motion to Strike Portions of Defense Expert Opinions filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A (Excerpts from the Deposition of Brian Withrow), # 2 Exhibit Ex.

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 25 of 29

12/18/2009
12/18/2009
12/18/2009 12/21/2009 12/22/2009 12/29/2009 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/12/2010 01/12/2010

B (Excerpts from the Deposition of Joseph Callanan))(Related document(s) 191 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
193 MOTION to Strike Exhibits and Portions of Declarations and Objections to Evidence re 164 Exhibits, 142 Declaration in Support, 161 Exhibits, 135 Exhibits, 163 Declaration in Support, 149 Declaration in Support, 141 Exhibits, 145 Declaration in Support, 144 Declaration in Support, 160 Declaration in Support, 147 Declaration in Support, 155 Declaration in Support, 143 Declaration in Support, 146 Declaration in Support, 153 Declaration in Support, 154 Declaration in Support, 136 Exhibits, 156 Declaration in Support, 134 Declaration in Support, 162 Exhibits, 148 Declaration in Support, 152 Declaration in Support filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (Proposed) Order Granting Motion to Strike Exhibits and Portions of Declarations and Objections to Evidence)(Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
194 Declaration of Kendra Fox−Davis in Support of 193 Motion to Strike filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, Chart of Unproduced or Altered Documents and Plaintiffs' Objections, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, Fox−Davis−Petersen Correspondence, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents)(Related document(s) 193 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
195 Declaration in Support of 193 Motion to Strike filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dang Decl. (Motion to Strike), Exs. A−B)(Related document(s) 193 ) (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
196 Memorandum in Opposition re 173 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 12/21/2009) Modified on 12/22/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2009)
197 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 133 Memorandum in Opposition (Page 27) filed by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2009)
198 Reply Memorandum re 173 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP 12(C) and (H)(2)(B) to Dismiss Plaintiff Bunton's and the Class' Claim for Damages per Civil Code Section 52.1 filed by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 12/29/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/29/2009)
199 Response re 191 Motion to Strike, 193 Motion to Strike and Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections filed by City of Antioch. (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 1/8/2010) Modified on 1/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2010)
200 Declaration of Thomas G. Beatty in Support of 199 Response filed by City of Antioch. (Related document(s) 199 ) (Fitzgerald, James) (Filed on 1/8/2010) Modified on 1/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2010)
201 Brief: Reply Memorandum re 193 Motion to Strike Exhibits and Portions of Declarations and Objections to Evidence, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 1/12/2010) Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/12/2010)
202 Supplemental Declaration of Kendra Fox−Davis in Support of 193 Motion to Strike filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents)(Related document(s) 193 ) (Larkin,

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 26 of 29

01/12/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 11/09/2010 02/04/2011 02/09/2011 02/14/2011 02/17/2011
02/23/2011
03/01/2011 03/08/2011 05/18/2011

Jocelyn) (Filed on 1/12/2010) Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/12/2010)
***Deadlines terminated. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2010) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
203 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 173 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010) Modified on 9/3/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
204 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 90 Motion to Certify Class; DENYING AS MOOT 191 Motion to Strike; DENYING AS MOOT 193 Motion to Strike. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010) Modified on 9/3/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/3/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
205 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 124 Motion to Bifurcate (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010) Modified on 9/3/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
206 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 2/16/2011 03:30 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/9/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2010) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
207 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Signature Page)(Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 2/4/2011) Modified on 2/7/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2011)
208 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/16/2011 03:15 PM. via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2011) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
209 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/17/2011 03:15 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
210 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 2/17/2011 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. General Discovery Cut−off 12/5/11; Motion Cut−off 12/13/11; Pretrial Conference Continued to 02/14/12 at 1:00 PM; Motions in limine due/objections to evidence due 01/24/12; Responses due 01/31/12; Replies/responses to objections due 02/07/12; Jury Trial Continued to 02/27/12 at 8:30 AM; Case referred to Magistrate Judge James Larson for MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to be held between 12/19/11 and 01/12/12. Last day to amend pleading is 02/17/11 (Date Filed: 2/17/2011). (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/17/2011) Modified on 2/24/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/24/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/23/2011)
211 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 10/3/2011. Jury Trial set for 2/27/2012 08:30 AM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Motions due by 12/13/2011. Pretrial Conference set for 2/14/2012 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Jury Selection set for 2/27/2012 08:30 AM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/23/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2011) Modified on 2/24/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/23/2011)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James Larson for Settlement. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2011) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
212 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge James Larson. Settlement Conference set for 5/18/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge James Larson on 3/8/11. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2011) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
213 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. Parties Unable to Settle. (Date Filed: 5/18/2011). (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/18/2011) Modified on 5/20/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2011)

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 27 of 29

06/01/2011
08/02/2011 09/01/2011 09/09/2011 09/13/2011 09/19/2011 12/20/2011 12/20/2011 12/20/2011 01/05/2012 01/05/2012 01/06/2012

Due to Magistrate Judge James Larson's retirement, this case is re−referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Settlement. All matters scheduled before, and deadlines set by, Judge Larson are hereby vacated. All future settlement matters should be addressed to Judge Corley unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge. Please contact Judge Corley's courtroom deputy, Ada Means, at (415)522−2015 or Ada_Means@cand.uscourts.gov with any questions or concerns. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed n 6/1/2011) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
214 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Modify Case Deadlines, filed by Priscilla Bunton, City of Antioch, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 8/2/2011) Modified on 8/3/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
215 ORDER DENYING 214 Stipulation, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, City of Antioch, Santeya Danyell Williams, and Order of Reference for Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/1/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011) Modified on 9/2/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/01/2011)
216 Minute Entry: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on September 9, 2011 before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (Date Filed: 9/9/2011). (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
217 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Modify Case Deadlines, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 9/13/2011) Modified on 9/14/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2011)
218 STIPULATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 12/5/2011. Jury Trial set for 5/7/2012 08:30 AM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Motions due by 2/14/2012. Pretrial Conference set for 4/24/2012 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/15/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011) Modified on 9/20/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2011)
219 Joint MOTION in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 12/20/2011) Modified on 12/21/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2011)
220 Declaration of Brad Seligman in Support of 219 Joint Motion in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 12/20/2011) Modified on 12/21/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/21/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2011)
221 Proposed Order re 219 Joint Motion in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Seligman, Brad) (Filed on 12/20/2011) Modified on 12/21/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2011)
222 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong REFERRING Motion to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley re 219 Joint Motion in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 1/4/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012) Modified on 1/6/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/2012)
***CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Report and Recommendation on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012) Modified on 1/5/2012 (ahm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/2012)
223 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley GRANTING 219 Joint Motion in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Setting

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 28 of 29

01/06/2012 02/13/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/07/2012 03/08/2012 03/08/2012
03/08/2012
03/08/2012 04/02/2012 04/06/2012

Fairness and Final Approval Hearing. Fairness and Final Approval Hearing set for 03/08/12 at 9:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, on 01/06/12. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2012) Modified on 1/9/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/06/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Fairness and Final Approval Hearing set for 3/8/2012 at 09:00 AM, Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2012) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
224 ORDER VACATING JURY TRIAL Scheduled for 02/27/12. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/13/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2012) Modified on 2/14/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/14/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/13/2012)
225 Declaration of Brad Seligman in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 2/29/2012) Modified on 3/1/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/29/2012)
226 Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 2/29/2012) Modified on 3/1/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/29/2012)
227 Proposed Judgment, by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 2/29/2012) Modified on 3/1/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/29/2012)
228 Statement Joint Motion in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 3/7/2012) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
229 CLERKS NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY RE 228 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
230 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing re: 228 Statement Joint Motion in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott and Santeya Danyell Williams held on 3/8/2012 before Magistrate Jacqueline Scott Corley (Date Filed: 3/8/2012). (Court Reporter: Connie Kuhl) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
231 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 228 Statement Joint Motion in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott and Santeya Danyell Williams. Objections due by 3/22/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/8/2012.(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
232 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment in Support of Final Approval of Settlement, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, Mary Ruth Scott, Santeya Danyell Williams, City of Antioch. (Larkin, Jocelyn) (Filed on 3/8/2012) Modified on 3/9/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2012)
233 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 231 Report and Recommendations, 232 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment, filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, City of Antioch, Santeya Danyell Williams. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/2/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2012) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
234 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND FINAL JUDGMENT re 232 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. The Court Appoints Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to consider claims alleging violation of the agreement. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 4/3/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2012) Modified on 4/9/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:08-cv-02301-SBA As of: 04/10/2012 07:33 AM PDT 29 of 29 04/06/2012)

 
 For Immediate Release: July 16, 2008
Contacts: Rebecca Farmer, ACLU of Northern CA, 415.621.2493 (office); 415.269.6275 (cell) Wynn Hausser, Public Advocates, 415.431.7430 Anayma de Frias, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, 415.543.9444
Federal Class Action Against City of Antioch Documents Police Targeting of African American Tenants
Press Conference at noon today in the Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Ave, 18th Floor, in San Francisco
San Francisco - The City of Antioch and its police department are engaged in a concerted campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination against African Americans who receive federally funded Section 8 housing rent assistance, say community members and attorneys from four Bay Area non-profit civil rights organizations who today filed a class action lawsuit in federal court.
“There is no question that the City and its police department are targeting Section 8 families, particularly African American recipients,” said attorney Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, based in Berkeley. “The Police have a deliberate policy of coercion, intimidation and threats that target these Section 8 families and their landlords. The City’s goal is to force these families to move out of town.”
Plaintiff Alyce Payne moved to Antioch with her children to show her family they could “make it” outside of Oakland and so that her children could attend public schools there. But after her landlord received several letters from the police department, her tenancy was terminated. Ms. Payne relocated her family out of the City.
“Everyone should have the right to live in peace in the community they choose,” said Payne, who testified before the Antioch City Council about the discrimination she encountered from police officers. “We all want to live in a place where our families and our rights are respected.”
Ms. Payne and the other named plaintiffs in the case, all African American women, document that the Antioch Police Department:
Established a special unit in 2006, the Community Action Team (CAT) for the purpose of targeting Section 8 residents, and the unit has directed the majority of its activities at African American families. Frequently searches the homes of African American families in the Section 8 program (or those erroneously believed to participate in the program) without their consent and without a warrant in an attempt to gather evidence to be used against Section 8 participants.

Engages in a pattern of informing neighbors of African-American Section 8 households that the household is receiving Section 8 housing assistance and suggesting that neighbors file nuisance or disturbance reports against the Section 8 household. Threatens landlords with letters and visits by suggesting that landlords will be held liable for the activities of Section 8 tenants, and police officers actively encourage landlords to evict Section 8 tenants. Attempts to pressure the local Housing Authority in charge of the Section 8 program to terminate the voucher benefits of tenants whom the police department has targeted. Over 70% of these attempts have been directed at African Americans. A majority of these complaints were not sustained by the Housing Authority.
The lawsuit claims that the varied forms of coercion, intimidation and threats carried out by the City and the Antioch Police Department violate state and federal laws, including the Fair Housing Act; the Fourth Amendment; and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race. It seeks an injunction against the City of Antioch to force it to stop its discriminatory and unlawful targeting of African American tenants. Filing suit on behalf of the plaintiffs are the Impact Fund, Public Advocates Inc., Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
The racial tensions that led to the targeting of the tenants in Antioch reflect a hostile response to shifting demographics tied to the real estate crisis. The downturn in the housing market has made many Antioch homes more affordable to renters who can help owners to meet mortgage payments, including participants in the federally subsidized Section 8 program. In the last five years, the number of Section 8 families in Antioch has risen by over 50%, to 1582, the majority of whom are African American. Over the same period, the African American population in Antioch has doubled, from 8,824 to 15,687, in a city of 101,000.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say that the City has reacted with alarm and hostility to the newcomers, choosing to scapegoat them as the cause of the economic downturn. They point to legal documents filed today containing numerous public statements by the mayor, city council members and police officers characterizing Section 8 residents as unlawful and unwelcome.
Profiling by Income and Race While only 25% of Antioch households rent their homes, 85% of investigations by the Antioch Police Department’s CAT unit involve rental households. Although Section 8 participants make up only 5% of Antioch households (one-fifth of all rental housing), two-thirds of the CAT team investigations involve homes where voucher participants reside.
The brunt of investigations by the CAT unit falls disproportionately on African Americans: African Americans constitute only about 14% of Antioch households yet they are subject to two-thirds of all special unit investigations.

The lawsuit, which expands a previously-filed suit filed by Bay Area Legal Aid, seeks an injunction against the City of Antioch to force it to stop its discriminatory and unlawful targeting of African American tenants. In addition to Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, attorneys working on the case include Richard Marcantonio of Public Advocates; Alan Schlosser of the ACLU-NC; and Oren M. Sellstrom and Kendra Fox-Davis of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Right of the San Francisco Bay Area.
# # #