Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04086-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -1- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 

JAMES M. CHADWICK Cal. Bar No. 157114 

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 

Tel: 415.434.9100 

Fax: 415.434.3947 

jchadwick@sheppardmullin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, HORTA, LLC 

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625) 

NORA FRIMANN, Chief Trial Attorney (#93249) 

JOSEPH P. DiCIUCCIO, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (#56885) 

Office of the City Attorney 

200 East Santa Clara Street 

San Jose, California 95113-1905 

Telephone: (408) 535-1900 

Facsimile: (408) 998-3131 

Email: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF SAN JOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HORTA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS) 

[Related Case Nos. C 00-20018 JF 

and C 05-03778 JF] 

STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION 

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

Complaint: August 23, 2002 

**E-filed 9/14/07**

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 1 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 14
I

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2005, the Court entered judgment and an injunction in this

action brought by Horta against the City of San Jose;

WHEREAS, on March 14, 2005, plaintiff Horta, LLC ("Horta") filed a Motion for

Attorneys' Fees, seeking to recover attorneys' fees incurred in this action and a Motion to

Reconsider, Reopen, and Amend Judgment; and

WHEREAS, Horta and the City of San Jose have reached an agreement resolving the

remaining issues in the litigation, with the exception of Horta's claim for attorneys' fees;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action,

10 that:

(1) The judgment previously entered in this action should be modified, and a modified

judgment in the form of Attachment A to this stipulation should be entered;

(2) The injunction previously entered in this action should be modified, and a

modified injunction in the form of Attachment B to this stipulation should be entered;

(3) Following entry of the modified judgment and injunction, a dismissal in the form

of Attachment C to this stipulation should be entered;

(4) Horta shall have 60 days from the date of entry of the modified judgment and

injunction in which to file any amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs, or any amendment

to the pending Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

Dated: ¢ . 2007 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By

.iA`iES CHAi)WWK

,Attorneys for Plaintiff HORTA, LLC

Dated: , 2007 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attome.

26

N OR A F'R -l IAN

-)SLP1' P. DICIUCCIO

Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SAN JOSE

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

28

-2- STIPULATION AND ORi i i

CASE NO. C 02-04086 3F 1 i;S) I

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 2 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -3- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS SO 

ORDERED: 

(1) The judgment previously entered in this action shall be modified, and a modified 

judgment in the form of Attachment A to this stipulation shall be entered; 

(2) The injunction previously entered in this action shall be modified, and a modified 

injunction in the form of Attachment B to this stipulation shall be entered; 

(3) Following entry of the modified judgment and injunction, a dismissal in the form 

of Attachment C to this stipulation shall be entered; and 

(4) Horta shall have 60 days from the date of entry of the modified judgment and 

injunction in which to file any amended motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, or any amendment 

to the pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

Dated: ___________________, 2007 

HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

9/14/

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 3 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -4- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

ATTACHMENT A

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 4 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -5- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HORTA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS) 

[Related Case Nos. C 00-20018 JF 

and C 05-03778 JF] 

JUDGMENT 

The Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Horta, LLC (“Horta”) and the Motion for 

Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues by Defendant City of 

San Jose (“the City”), came on for hearing on September 27, 2004, the Honorable Jeremy Fogel, 

presiding. The evidence presented having been fully considered, the issues having been duly 

heard, an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was entered on January 26, 2005, and a 

Judgment and Injunction were entered on February 28, 2005. 

Thereafter, on March 14, 2005, Horta filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, seeking to 

recover attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, and a Motion to Reconsider, Reopen, and Amend 

Judgment (the “Motion to Amend”). 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 5 of 14

**E-filed 9/14/07**

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 5 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -6- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

The parties having now entered into an Agreement Settling Pending Litigation 

(“Agreement”) and a stipulation, the Court being familiar with the record in this matter and in the 

related cases, and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 

1. Horta was entitled to operate its Boeing 727-200 aircraft (“the 727”) at the 

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (“the Airport”) during the hours of 11:30 p.m. 

to 6:30 a.m. (“the Curfew Hours”) under Section X(B)(2) of the original San Jose Airport Noise 

Control Program, which was in effect from February 1984 until October 21, 2003 (“the original 

NCP”). 

2. In light of its interpretation and application of Section X(B)(2) at the time of its 

decision, the City abused its discretion in determining that Horta’s proposed Curfew-Hour 

operations of the 727 at the Airport did not qualify as general aviation operations under Section 

X(B)(2) of the old Noise Control Program and in denying authorization for such operations. 

3. Horta, or its affiliates Fry’s Electronics, Inc. (“Fry’s), or the San Jose SaberCats, 

L.P. (“Sabercats”), each of Horta, Fry’s, and the SaberCats being an “Authorized Operator,” are 

permitted to operate the Aircraft at the Airport during Curfew Hours pursuant to the request by 

Horta for authorization to conduct curfew hour operations under Section X(B)(2) of the Original 

NCP (“Curfew Flights”), subject to the following conditions: 

a. There shall be no more than fifteen (15) flights (i.e., a landing and a takeoff) of the 

Aircraft during Curfew Hours in each calendar year; 

b. The only purpose for which Curfew Flights shall be conducted is for transporting 

the SaberCats football team (which may be accompanied by owners, officers, 

employees and guests of the SaberCats or Fry's), together with the personal 

baggage and equipment of the passengers; 

c. Each Curfew Flight shall be operated using approved quiet flying procedures, as 

set forth in the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual for the Aircraft; 

d. Within five days of each Curfew Flight, the Authorized Operator shall complete, 

sign and deliver to the Office of the Director of Aviation at SJC a Curfew 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 6 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 6 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -7- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

Operation Form ("Form"). The Form will be delivered by facsimile to the Airport 

Noise Office. 

4. The City is permanently enjoined from preventing Horta from operating the 727 at 

the Airport during the Curfew Hours, subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. 

5. The City is permanently enjoined from taking any action, including but not limited 

to the commencement or prosecution of administrative proceedings, to fine, penalize, or 

otherwise sanction operations of the 727 performed in compliance with the conditions imposed by 

this Judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be entered in favor of Horta and that 

Horta recover its costs. 

Dated: ___________________, 2007 

HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 7 of 14

9/14

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 7 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -8- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

ATTACHMENT B 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 8 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 8 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -9- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HORTA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS) 

[Related Case Nos. C 00-20018 JF 

and C 05-03778 JF] 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER 

TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN JOSE: 

In accordance with the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment entered 

on January 26, 2005, and pursuant to the agreement and stipulation of the parties, you, your 

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or 

participation with you or them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or 

otherwise, are hereby PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from directly or 

indirectly: 

1. Preventing operations of the Boeing 727-200 aircraft that was the subject of the 

application by Horta, LLC (“Horta”) for authorization pursuant to Section X(B)(2) of the old 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 9 of 14

**E-filed 9/14/07**

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 9 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -10- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

Noise Control Program (“the 727”) at the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport 

(“Airport”) during the hours of 11:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. (“Curfew Hours”) subject to the following 

conditions: 

a. There shall be no more than fifteen (15) flights (i.e., a landing and a takeoff) of the 

Aircraft during Curfew Hours in each calendar year; 

b. The only purpose for which Curfew Flights shall be conducted is for transporting 

the SaberCats football team (which may be accompanied by owners, officers, 

employees and guests of the SaberCats or Fry's), together with the personal 

baggage and equipment of the passengers; 

c. Each Curfew Flight shall be operated using approved quiet flying procedures, as 

set forth in the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual for the Aircraft; 

d. Within five days of each Curfew Flight, the Authorized Operator shall complete, 

sign and deliver to the Office of the Director of Aviation at SJC a Curfew 

Operation Form ("Form"). The Form will be delivered by facsimile to the Airport 

Noise Office. 

2. Taking any action, including but not limited to the commencement or prosecution 

of administrative proceedings, to fine, penalize, or otherwise sanction operations of the 727 

performed in compliance with the conditions imposed by this Order. 

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce this Permanent Injunction 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________________, 2007 

HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 10 of 14

9/14

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 10 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -11- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

ATTACHMENT C 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 11 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 11 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -12- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HORTA, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS) 

[Related Case Nos. C 00-20018 JF 

and C 05-03778 JF] 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Horta brought this action challenging the legality of certain aspects of the 

San Jose Airport Noise Control Program enacted in 1984 (Original NCP), and the revised Noise 

Control Program enacted in 2003 through the adoption of San Jose Ordinances 27000 and 27001 

(the “Revised NCP”); 

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2005, the Court entered judgment and an injunction in this 

action brought by Horta against the City of San Jose; 

WHEREAS, on March 14, 2005, plaintiff Horta, LLC (“Horta”) filed a Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees, seeking to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in this action and a Motion to 

Reconsider, Reopen, and Amend Judgment; and 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 12 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 12 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -13- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

WHEREAS, Horta and the City of San Jose have reached an agreement resolving the 

remaining issues in the litigation, with the exception of Horta’s claim for attorneys’ fees; 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action, 

that: 

1. All remaining claims relating to the legality of the Original NCP and the Revised 

NCP, with the exception of claims for attorneys' fees and costs based on the prior partial grant of 

Horta's motion for summary judgment and issuance of the Judgment and Injunction, should be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

2. The dismissal does not and shall not be construed to have any effect on Horta's 

pending Motion for Attorneys' Fees, or on any claim for attorneys' fees or costs incurred since the 

filing of that motion, which claims are expressly reserved; 

3. Horta shall have 60 days from the date of entry of the modified judgment and 

injunction pursuant to this Agreement in which to file any amended motion for attorneys' fees and 

costs, or any amendment to the pending Motion for Attorneys' Fees; and 

4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

ORDER

The parties having now entered into an Agreement Settling Pending Litigation 

(“Agreement”) and a stipulation, the Court being familiar with the record in this matter and in the 

related cases, and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

1. All remaining claims relating to the legality of the Original NCP and the Revised 

NCP, with the exception of claims for attorneys' fees and costs based on the prior partial grant of 

Horta's motion for summary judgment and issuance of the Judgment and Injunction, shall be and 

hereby are dismissed with prejudice; 

2. The dismissal does not and shall not be construed to have any effect on Horta's 

pending Motion for Attorneys' Fees, or on any claim for attorneys' fees or costs incurred since the 

filing of that motion, which claims are expressly reserved; 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 13 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 13 of 14
1 

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 

W02-WEST:5JMC1\400327225.3 -14- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-04086 JF (RS)

3. Horta shall have 60 days from the date of entry of the modified judgment and 

injunction pursuant to this Agreement in which to file any amended motion for attorneys' fees and 

costs, or any amendment to the pending Motion for Attorneys' Fees; and 

4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________________, 2007 

HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 295 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 14 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-04086-JF Document 297 Filed 09/14/07 Page 14 of 14