Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01264/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01264-5/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01264-MEJ 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 38

Plaintiff Noel Ramirez brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Hayward 

(the “City”), Police Officer Richard McLeod, and Officers Doe 1-25 (collectively “Defendants”) 

for the alleged use of excessive force during his March 4, 2013 arrest. Pending before the Court is 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 38, “MSJ”), as well as McLeod’s to 

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 32, “MTD”). The Court held a hearing on these matters on July 2, 

2015. Dkt. No. 49.

Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this 

case, the Court requires supplemental briefing concerning four of Plaintiff’s claims that were not 

adequately addressed in the parties’ briefing: (1) Plaintiff’s first cause of action, an unreasonable 

search and seizure claim against McLeod for a violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) Plaintiff’s 

fourth cause of action, an assault and battery claim against McLeod; (3) Plaintiff’s seventh cause 

of action, a claim against McLeod for a violation of California Civil Code section 52.1(b) for 

interference with Plaintiff’s exercise and enjoyment of his civil rights under the United States and 

California Constitutions; and (4) Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action, a claim for negligence against 

McLeod. Officer McLeod argues that all the claims against him are barred under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m)—including the claims above. MSJ at 4-5. He also argues that California 

Case 3:14-cv-01264-MEJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Government Code section 945.6 bars Plaintiff’s state law claims against him because Plaintiff 

filed his First Amended Complaint—the first complaint to properly name McLeod—on August 

29, 2014, which was more than six months after the City sent Plaintiff notice of the rejection of his 

claim. Id. at 6-8. But there was no argument from either party about the four claims above in the 

event that the Court did not accept Defendants’ arguments under Rule 4(m) or section 945.6. 

Accordingly, by July 16, 2015, Defendants shall file a supplemental brief addressing the 

four claims above, or a statement that they waive arguments as to those claims. If Defendants file 

a supplemental brief, Plaintiff shall file a response by July 23, 2015. Each supplemental brief 

should be no longer than 10 pages total, exclusive of related declarations and related evidence. 

The Court will consider amendments to this briefing schedule in the event that the parties are able 

to agree to an alternative schedule and provide such a stipulation to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01264-MEJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2