Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02506-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD N. GALBRAITH, Executor of the

ESTATE OF NELSON GALBRAITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; ANGELO

OZOA, M.D., individually and as an agent of

Santa Clara County,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-02506 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 28, 2005: 

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and RESERVES IN PART the motion for

summary judgment filed by defendants the County of Santa Clara and Angelo Ozoa, M.D.

(collectively, “Defendants”). The Court tentative GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s

claims against Dr. Ozoa but tentatively RESERVES RULING on Defendants’ motion as to

Plaintiff’s claims against the County. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points

and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those

pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional 

Case 3:03-cv-02506-JSW Document 211 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the

opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) If the Court concludes that the prosecutor made an independent decision to file charges

against and prosecute Galbraith and that Dr. Ozoa’s autopsy and findings were not

central factors in her decision, what County policy, practices or procedures do Plaintiff

contend caused Galbraith to be arrested and prosecuted for murder? What evidence is

there in the record, if any, of such policy, practices or procedures?

(2) Plaintiff contends that the presumption of prosecutorial independence does not apply to

the Section 1983 claim against the County? Do Defendants agree or disagree? What

authority supports the parties’ respective positions?

(3) Plaintiff presents evidence that, if true, would demonstrate that the initial investigation

of Mrs. Galbraith’s death as a homicide was triggered by Dr. Ozoa’s conclusion that it

was a homicide. Therefore may be some evidence of causation. If the higher standard

necessary to rebut the presumption of prosecutorial independence does not apply (i.e.

that Dr. Ozoa’s report and conclusions “were instrumental in causing the filing and

prosecution of the criminal proceedings”), on what basis do defendants contend that

summary judgment may be granted for the County?

(4) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-02506-JSW Document 211 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 2