Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02142/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02142-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM ABEND, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-2142 EMC

ORDER RE JUNE 13, 2007, HEARING

ON CITY OF OAKLAND’S MOTIONS

TO DISMISS

(Docket Nos. 4, 7)

The Court hereby orders the parties to be prepared to address the following questions at the

June 13, 2007, hearing on the City of Oakland’s motions to dismiss.

(1) What deprivation of property (if any) occurred when:

(a) The City initially declared the Abends’ property a nuisance on or about May 18, 2006

(i.e., in the “30 Day Notice to Abate” letter)?

(b) The Abends’ administrative appeal was denied?

(2) What enforcement steps can the City take to abate a nuisance short of a lawsuit?

(3) Does the Supreme Court’s recent decision Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955

(2007), affect the analysis of the sufficiency of the Abends’ complaint?

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02142-EMC Document 16 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

(4) Is the Abends’ takings claim premature to the extent that the Court must first adjudicate the

City’s nuisance enforcement action in order to determine e.g., whether there is a takings?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02142-EMC Document 16 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2