Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01764/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01764-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

Application to Supplement Defs’ Reply Brief ISO MSJ; Order Granting Same [07-1764]

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

Clifford F. Campbell, Esq. (SBN: 60734)

ccampbell@meyersnave.com

Tricia L. Hynes, Esq. (SBN: 212550)

thynes@meyersnave.com

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

555 12th Street, Suite 1500

Oakland, CA 94607

Telephone: (510) 808-2000

Facsimile: (510) 444-1108

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF PETALUMA (incorrectly identified as PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT), TAMARA 

SHOEMAKER, PAUL GILMAN, BERT WALKER, STEVE NELSON, DJ PHIMISTER, LANCE 

NOVELLO, Petaluma Police Officer WALSH, MATTHEW THOMAS, Petaluma Police Sergeant 

KAHL and PETALUMA CITY MANAGER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSE MARIE SAMPSON and TONY AVILA 

SAMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT, TAMARA 

SHOEMAKER, Badge No.# 1956, individually and 

as a police officer, PAUL GILMAN, Badge No.# 

2042, individually and as a police officer, BERT 

WALKER, Badge No.# 2017, individually and as a 

police officer, STEVE NELSON, Badge No.# 2285, 

individually and as a police detective, DJ 

PHIMISTER, Badge No.# 0607, individually and as a 

police sergeant, LANCE NOVELLO, Badge No.# 

2363, individually and as a police officer, WALSH, 

Badge No.# 2405, individually and as a police officer, 

MATTHEW THOMAS, individually and as a police 

officer, KAHL, individually and as a police sergeant, 

AMERICAN TOW SERVICE, ALAN WAYNE 

PETTIT, SAFEWAY, INC., SAFEWAY STORE 

#0796, CITY OF PETALUMA, COUNTY OF 

SONOMA, SONOMA COUNTY MAIN ADULT 

DETENTION FACILITY, SONOMA COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA 

FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., PETALUMA 

CITY MANAGER, DOE ONE thru TWENTY, 

inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No: C07-01764 JL

APPLICATION OF CITY OF 

PETALUMA DEFENDANTS TO 

SUPPLEMENT THE DEFENDANTS’ 

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS; ORDER GRANTING 

SAME

(Local Rule 7-3(d))

First Amended Complaint Filed: February 1, 2007

Trial Date: None set

Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 44 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 47 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 4
1

Application to Supplement Defs’ Reply Brief ISO MSJ; Order Granting Same [07-1764]

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

I, Clifford Campbell, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to the bar of this Court. I represent the City of 

Petaluma defendants in the pending action. I submit this Declaration under Local Rule 7-3(d), which 

requires permission from this Court to submit additional memoranda concerning a pending Motion, 

once a Reply Brief has been filed. The additional memorandum I seek to submit is an Amended Reply 

Brief in Support of the City Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. I have personal 

knowledge of all matters stated within this Declaration.

2. This Court has scheduled March 12, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. as the date it will hear the 

Motion of the City of Petaluma Defendants for Judgment on the Pleadings.

3. The City Defendants filed their original Reply Brief in support of that Motion on 

February 20, 2008, which is seven days before it actually was due. The Amended Reply Brief which I 

seek to file with this Court also will be filed and served before the due date for the City Defendants’ 

original Reply. 

4. The reason I seek to amend the City Defendants’ Reply Brief is to prevent the plaintiffs 

from deriving an unfair advantage from a tactic they employed in opposing the City Defendants’ 

present motion. On February 12 the plaintiffs filed and served a document entitled, “Application for 

Order Extending Time and Order.” In that Application plaintiff Tony Sampson requested that the 

hearing of my clients’ Motion be rescheduled to April 16, 2008; and that he be given until April 1, 

2008 to file his Opposition Brief. He explained that he sought this continuance “because this case is 

not presently scheduled for trial and application is made for the appointment of pro bono counsel.” 

Further, according to Mr. Sampson:

“. . . both plaintiffs in this action have medical disabilities and request 

the court allow up to, and including, April 1, 2008 for filing briefs in 

opposition to defendants’ motion.”

Since the plaintiffs thus were claiming that they were seeking “pro bono counsel”; since they were 

asserting that they were medically incapable of preparing a timely opposition; and further, since they 

were requesting an enlargement of time in which to file their opposition briefs, the clear implication of 

this Application was that the plaintiffs did not intend to file an opposition brief by February 20, which 

Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 44 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 47 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 4
2

Application to Supplement Defs’ Reply Brief ISO MSJ; Order Granting Same [07-1764]

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

was their last day to do so. This was the inference I drew.

5. On February 20 I submitted my clients’ Reply to this Court. In that document we 

objected to the requested continuance. I presented evidentiary objections, as well, to a declaration 

which the plaintiffs also had sent us on February 12: the “Declaration of Jessica DeFaria in Support of 

Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion by Petaluma City Defendants for Judgment on the Pleadings on Claim 

8 of the First Amended Complaint.” My clients’ objections to the continuance, and to the proffered 

Declaration, were the sole subjects of the brief which I originally designated as my clients’ Reply Brief 

in Support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

6. Later in the day on February 20, after my clients’ original Reply already had been filed 

with this Court, I received a twenty-page Opposition Brief from the plaintiffs. According to the Proofof-Service attached to that document, the plaintiffs mailed that Opposition to my office on February 

15. This was three days after the plaintiffs had requested a continuance of the pending hearing, 

ostensibly because they were unable to complete their Opposition Brief on time. 

7. Since my clients have not otherwise had the opportunity to respond to any of the points

the plaintiffs have made in their Opposition Brief, I request permission to submit an Amended Reply 

Brief, in which we do respond to those points. If the Court should approve this Application, my 

clients’ Amended Reply Brief would be filed and served before February 27, 2008, which is the 

deadline established by the Local Rules for our original Reply Brief. (Civil L.R. 7-3(c).)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true 

and correct.

EXECUTED this 21st day of February, 2008, in Oakland, California.

/s/

Clifford Campbell

Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 44 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 3 of 4 Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 47 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 4
3

Application to Supplement Defs’ Reply Brief ISO MSJ; Order Granting Same [07-1764]

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

Order Permitting Supplemental Memorandum

(Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-3(c))

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City of Petaluma Defendants’ application to submit a 

supplemental memorandum of authorities, as requested herein, shall be, and is hereby granted.

Dated:_______________

By

Magistrate Judge

United States District Court 

1060580_1

Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 44 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 4 of 4 Case 3:07-cv-01764-JL Document 47 Filed 02/25/08 Page 4 of 4