Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01780/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01780-0/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LEVINE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA and JAMES M.

FLINT,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-01780 CRB

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR

PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF CROSS

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Edward Levine asserts in his suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that his

constitutional due process rights were violated when he was laid off by defendants. 

Defendants asserts that plaintiff’s due process rights were satisfied, that defendant James

Flint enjoys qualified immunity, and that plaintiff cannot establish the existence of a city

policy or custom of denying due process as is required. The Court held a hearing regarding

cross motions for summary judgment on September 9, 2005.

As discussed in open court, the Court grants both parties leave to file supplemental

briefing in support of the cross motions for summary judgment. In particular, the Court

directs the parties to address the following issues:

1) The legal standard, as it currently exists in the Ninth Circuit, for procedural due

process as it relates to a pre-termination, not-for-cause layoff. The parties should

specifically address whether the City must provide an opportunity to be heard before a 

“neutral,” or, in any event, whether the hearing officer must have decision-making authority

Case 3:04-cv-01780-CRB Document 65 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\1780\ordersupplementalbriefing.wpd 2

in order to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In addition, the parties should

address whether plaintiff’s due process rights would be satisfied if the City grants plaintiff a

meaningful opportunity to be heard at this stage. Finally, defendants should include more

detail about the meeting that took place on February 26, 2005 or February 27, 2005 between

plaintiff and Karen Willis, as well as what role Ms. Willis played in that meeting and whether

there were any internal discussions about the meeting with defendant Flint or anyone else

thereafter.

2) Whether and to what extent this legal standard for due process may be altered in

this instance by requiring an opportunity to be heard by a third-party. See Dwyer v. Regan,

777 F.2d 825 (2nd Cir. 1985).

3) What damages would still be available to plaintiff if the Court grants qualified

immunity to defendant Flint and determines that the City is not liable. In particular, the

parties should address whether back pay would be available.

The parties are free to conduct further depositions in support of their motions. Any

supplemental briefing shall be filed no later than November 18, 2005, at which time the

Court will determine whether another hearing is warranted. The parties are directed to limit

their briefs to a maximum of 10 pages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01780-CRB Document 65 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2