Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03066/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03066-6/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

1

Order Permitting Substitution and Dismissal of Certain Defendants - Case No. 08-03066 PVT

JON A. HEABERLIN (SBN 199810)

RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE,

SERVERIAN & STOCK

96 No. Third Street, Suite 500

San Jose, California 95112

(408) 293-0463

Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY NAVA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MIKE SEADLER, individually and in

his capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; CLYDE CHENG, individually

and in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer, ALEX TORKE,

individually and in his capacity as a

Santa Clara police officer; A. WOLF,

individually and in his capacity as a

Santa Clara police officer; S.

MAJOROS, individually and in his

capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; T. SHEARER, individually

and in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer; J. FANUCCHI,

individually and in his capacity as a

Santa Clara police officer; T.

NIESEN, individually and in his

capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; M. OVER, individually and in

his capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; DAN WINTER, individually

and in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer; A. LANGE, individually

and in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer; R. CIRAULO,

individually and in his capacity as a

Santa Clara police officer; J.

MASTILOCK, individually and in his

capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; A. LAYTON, individually and

in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer; J. GREEN, individually

and in his capacity as a Santa Clara

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C08 03066 PVT

ORDER PERMITTING SUBSTITUTION

AND DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN

DEFENDANTS

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PSG Document 76 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Order Permitting Substitution and Dismissal of Certain Defendants - Case No. 08-03066 PVT

police officer; D. RUSH, individually

and in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer; F. SAUNDERS,

individually and in his capacity as a

Santa Clara police officer; D.

MACHADO, individually and in his

capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; J. OLIVER, individually and in

his capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer; B. STERKEL, individually and

in his capacity as a Santa Clara

police officer; JOHN DOE and

RICHARD ROE, individually and in

their capacities as Santa Clara police

officers, the true names and exact

numbers of whom are unknown at

this time; CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

a municipal corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED, the Court hereby orders:

1. MARK SCHALLER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police

officer, shall be added as a Defendant to this action. Plaintiff’s action against Defendant

MARK SCHALLER shall not include a claim for punitive or exemplary damages.

2. Defendant MARK SCHALLER shall file a responsive pleading within 14 days

of the entry of this Order.

3. The following Defendants shall be dismissed: ANTHONY LAYTON (sued

herein as “A. LAYTON”), JOE OLIVER (sued herein as “J. OLIVER”), and BRYAN

STERKEL (sued herein as “B. STERKEL”).

4. The parties shall continue good faith efforts to dismiss individual defendants

having no direct involvement with the contact at issue alleged by Plaintiff.

5. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff, should she deem in good faith at

a later stage in litigation that there is evidence to suggest one of the officer-defendants

enumerated in Paragraph 3 did have direct involvement with her contact at issue, to apply

for leave to add that (those) officer(s) back in as Defendants.

6. Plaintiff shall not be required to subpoena dismissed defendants for

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PSG Document 76 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Order Permitting Substitution and Dismissal of Certain Defendants - Case No. 08-03066 PVT

deposition, but may do so to the extent otherwise appropriate upon Notice.

DATED: 5/10/10

MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE UNITED

STATE DISTRICT COURT

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PSG Document 76 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 3