Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01581/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01581-0/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

05cv1581

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS’

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1581 H (POR)

vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER OR STAY OF STATE

COURT PROCEEDINGS

MICHAEL AGUIRRE; CITY OF SAN

DIEGO; SAN DIEGO CITY

EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT

SYSTEM, et al.,

 Defendants.

On September 22, 2006, the Court convened a hearing on Plaintiffs’ application to certify

a class in a related case, Aaron v. Aguirre, 06-CV-1451-H. The evening before the noticed

hearing, on September 21, 2006, Plaintiffs’ served an application for a temporary restraining

order or stay of state court proceedings, or in the alternative, requested an order to show cause

why the state court action should not be stayed in both the Aaron case and the above-captioned

case. Due to the impending fairness hearing in the state court proceeding, the Court permitted

Plaintiffs to file the request for a temporary restraining order, accepted for filing the oppositions

to that request, and heard oral argument on the issue. 

Christopher Nissen, Esq. and Bradley Matthews, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs;

Rodney Perlman, Esq. and Donald McGrath, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant Aguirre;

Peter Benzian, Esq. and Colleen Smith, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant City of San Diego

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 474 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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

05cv1581

- 2 -

and the Individual Defendants; and Reg Vitek, Esq. and Matthew Mahoney, Esq. appeared on

behalf of Defendant San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (“SDCERS”). Also, Martha

Gooding, Esq. and Stephen Cook, Esq. appeared for Defendant KPMG, LLP. in the Aaron

action. 

In addition, Michael Conger, Esq. and Richard Benes, Esq. attended the hearing on behalf

of Plaintiff William J. McGuigan in a state court action, McGuigan v. City of San Diego, GIC

849883, which is pending before San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss.

 For the reasons stated below and at the hearing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for

a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or stay of the state court proceedings. 

Background

This action has been before the Court since August 2005, and the Court is familiar with

the facts and issues and does not repeat them here. Plaintiff San Diego Police Officers’

Association has filed this suit in its capacity as the recognized employee organization

representing police officers employed by the San Diego Police Department. The same counsel

recently filed a related case, Aaron v. Aguirre, in the name of over 1,600 individual police

officers. The application for the temporary restraining order concerns both federal cases, and

the Court has issued separate but identical orders in both dockets. (The order in the Aaron case

also addresses class certification motion).

In addition to the SDPOA and Aaron actions pending in federal court, there are numerous

related lawsuits in state court, including the consolidated cases by SDCERS pending before San

Diego Superior Court Judge Barton which address the legality of the Managers’ Proposals I and

II, as well as criminal investigations. See Status Report Regarding Related State Court Actions

(filed May 12, 2006). The McGuigan lawsuit, which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ request for a

TRO or stay, was filed in state court in June 2005 and Judge Strauss has calendared a fairness

hearing to determine if that action should be settled under the negotiated term that the City

contribute $173 million into SDCERS. The Court takes judicial notice of these other state court

proceedings, and the Court has the entire context of the pension crisis in mind in ruling on the

instant motion. 

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 474 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

05cv1581

- 3 -

Temporary Restraining Order or Stay of State Court Proceedings

To obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must demonstrate “either: (1) a likelihood of success

on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm; or (2) that serious questions going to the

merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Walczak v. EPL

Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999). These two tests represent extremes of a single

continuum; thus, the greater the relative hardship to plaintiff, the less probability of success need

be shown. Id. 

The primary concern with Plaintiffs’ application to enjoin or stay the state court

proceedings is the principle of federalism, which requires the federal court to respect the

concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts. Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing of facts

that would authorize the federal court to interfere with or disrupt the state court action.

 At the August 2, 2006 hearing, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ first request to enjoin or

stay the state court proceedings in McGuigan. Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiffs’

Application for TRO (filed August 3, 2006). At that time, the City had proposed language

purporting to dispose of the federal causes of action even though the SDPOA had not yet had

an opportunity to oppose the settlement terms. But since that time, the proposed settlement

agreement in McGuigan has been narrowed to focus on the underfunding of the pension as

defined by the difference in the actuarial’s calculation and the City’s actual contribution for

fiscal years 1997 to 2004. Nissen Decl. Ex. D (filed Sept. 15, 2006 in reply to class certification

motion in 06-CV-1451-H). This alteration eliminates the Court’s concern because the broad

language has been removed. Nissen Decl. Ex. D. Moreover, the record now shows that the

SDPOA will have a fair opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement. The state court has

allowed interested persons to file written objections by September 29, 2006, and the fairness

hearing will be held on October 16, 2006. 

Turning to the traditional test for issuing a temporary restraining order, the Court finds

that Plaintiffs have not made a showing of irreparable harm if the state court proceeds with its

fairness hearing on the proposed class action settlement. The underfunding of the pension is a

state law question that is appropriately handled in state court. In any event, federal policy favors

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 474 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

05cv1581

- 4 -

settlement of disputes and the state court proceedings are not violating the federal civil rights

laws in any way whatsoever. Most importantly, the state court will provide an opportunity for

SDPOA to raise its objections to the fairness of the proposed settlement (including its allegations

of notice, lack of opt-out, adequacy of class counsel). The brief that Plaintiffs’ filed contains

arguments that can be presented to Judge Strauss for his consideration. Finally, any res judicata

effect of the state court settlement on the issues in this federal litigation will be determined in

the future motion proceeding, thereby giving Plaintiffs another fair opportunity to argue their

position. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to stay, enjoin, or otherwise interfere

in the state court proceedings.

Conclusion

Upon due consideration of the parties' memoranda and exhibits, the arguments of counsel,

a review of the record, and for the reasons set forth above and at the hearing:

1. The Clerk of the Court may file Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order

or stay and the oppositions to the temporary restraining order submitted by Defendant City of

San Diego and by Michael Conger, on behalf of the McGuigan state court action; and the Court

will deem the pleadings to have been filed in both SDPOA, 05-CV-1581-H and Aaron, 06-CV1451-H. In the future, all counsel must file an original pleading for each docket. 

2. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order staying state

court proceedings, or in the alternative, for an order to show cause why state court proceedings

should not be stayed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CC: All Counsel of Record

*Michael Conger, Esq.

P.O. Box 9374

Rancho Sante Fe, CA 92067

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 474 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 4