Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01843/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01843-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL COHN, PATRICIA J.

COHN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ORINDA,

Does 1 through 50,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-1843 BZ

BRIEFING ORDER

At trial plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their

pleadings to conform to proof. On January 18, 2006,

plaintiffs shall file a brief in support of the new claims,

identifying the elements of each of the claims, discussing the

evidence which supports each of the elements and any authority

which supports their position that they are entitled to relief

on each claim. By January 25, 2006, defendants shall file an

opposition. Any reply shall be filed by January 30, 2006. 

In their briefs the parties should address the following

issues:

1. Does the Constitution require that plaintiffs be

Case 3:04-cv-01843-BZ Document 152 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

afforded an appeal to either the City Council or the Board of

Supervisors? See David v. City of Los Angeles, 307 F.3d 1143,

1147 (9th Cir. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 538 U.S. 715

(2003), remanded to 335 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2003)(denying

plaintiff’s claim that the “mere fact that the hearing

examiner was employed by the agency–or the City–was sufficient

to show a due process violation because the officer who

ordered the towing and storage worked for the agency also”).

2. Can defendants be estopped into issuing plaintiffs a

septic permit that does not comply with the local ordinances

and regulations? See Merco Construction v. Los Angeles

Unified etc., 274 Cal. App. 2d 154, 161 (1969) (“estoppel is

not available to: ... compel an agency [to do something] when

a statute limits the agency’s power to do so and the statute

has not been complied with”).

A copy of all briefs shall be delivered to chambers on a

floppy diskette containing a copy of the document formatted in

WordPerfect 6.1, 8, 9 or 10 (Windows) or WordPerfect 5.1

(DOS). 

Dated: January 12, 2006 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\COHN\brief.bz.wpd.

Case 3:04-cv-01843-BZ Document 152 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2