Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01504/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01504-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

PATRICK J TOBIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01504-MEJ 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REQUIRING 

FURTHER BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 94

The July 14, 2016 hearing scheduled in this matter is hereby CONTINUED until August 

11, 2016. The Court further ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following 

issues the Court finds relevant to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment:

1. Plaintiff did not present his claims to the City in compliance with the California 

Government Tort Claims Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 900, et seq.) until December 

2011. Can Plaintiff “relate” his state law claims back to the original complaint, 

which had not been presented to the City as required by California Government 

Code sections 900, et seq.? 

2. If Plaintiff’s claims accrued no later than May 2010 (see Mot., Dkt. No. 94-1 at 

13), are his claims barred by both California Government Code sections 945.6(a)(1)

& (2)?

The parties shall file these supplemental briefs no later than July 21, 2016. The briefs shall not 

exceed two double-spaced pages and shall consist of a response to each question posed and 

supporting legal authority. Arguments unsupported by legal authority shall be stricken. 

In addition, the Court observes that in many instances, Plaintiff has not “cit[ed] to 

particular materials in the record” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)) to establish a triable fact exists as to 

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 105 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

certain issues. Plaintiff also has failed to identify “additional facts that establish a genuine issue of 

material fact or otherwise preclude judgment in favor of” defendant (see Case Management Order, 

Dkt. No. 43 at 3). Pursuant to Rule 56(e)(1), the Court will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to 

identify specific portions of the record that create a triable fact regarding the following five issues:

1. When and how Plaintiff engaged in protected speech.

2. Why Plaintiff acted as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a public employee

when he engaged in protected speech.

3. Whether officers other than Plaintiff earned Like Work Like Pay (“LWLP”) after 

2009.

4. Whether Plaintiff was denied LWLP for retaliatory reasons, or rather because there 

was no assigned lieutenant whose duties Plaintiff would be performing and/or

because Plaintiff never received permission to receive LWLP from his Captain, 

Commander, or Deputy Chief.

5. When and how Defendant took retaliatory action against Plaintiff after May 2010, 

and why that action was retaliatory.

No later than July 21, 2016, Plaintiff shall file another supplemental statement identifying, by 

Docket Number, page, and where appropriate, line number, those portions of the record on 

summary judgment (i.e., Dkt. Nos. 94-102) that he contends create a triable fact on these five 

issues as they are framed by the summary judgment briefs. Plaintiff shall only address evidence 

referenced in the summary judgment briefs; he may not augment the record. The declaration shall 

consist only of specific citations to the record on summary judgment relating solely to these five 

issues; it shall include no argument. 

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 105 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No later than July 28, 2016, Defendant may file a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s 

statement identifying specific citations to the record that respond to Plaintiff’s evidence and/or 

objecting to the evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2016

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01504-MEJ Document 105 Filed 07/12/16 Page 3 of 3