Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05442/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05442-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

THOMAS A. SPITZER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRISHA A. ALJOE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05442-MEJ 

ORDER FOR DANIEL LAWRENCE 

BAXTER TO FILE DECLARATION

On August 7, 2015, Plaintiffs Thomas “Leroy” Spitzer and Craig Spitzer (“Plaintiffs”) and 

Defendants City of Pleasanton, Trisha Aljoe, Jonathan Lowell, George Thomas, Walter 

Wickboldt, Officer Ryan Tujague, and Robert Leong (“City Defendants”) engaged in courtordered mediation, which resulted in a settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 135 at 5. Pending before 

the Court is the City Defendants’ Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination pursuant 

to California Civil Code sections 877 and 877.6. Dkt. No. 136. 

In addition to the City Defendants’ Application, on September 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a 

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Court’s Order denying 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, or in the alternative for Leave to 

File a Motion for Leave to Amend. Dkt. No. 139. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to re-assert 

claims against a former Defendant, J. Benjamin McGrew, whom the Court previously dismissed. 

Id.; see Dkt. No. 44 (Order re: Mot. to Dismiss McGrew). The Court recently granted that Motion 

in part, permitting Plaintiffs Leave to File a Motion to Amend their Complaint, on the basis that 

Plaintiffs may possess facts establishing a viable claim against McGrew. Dkt. No. 145. 

Given the Court’s decision to allow Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend, and the potential 

that McGrew may re-enter these proceedings, the Court ordered McGrew to attend the October 8, 

2015 hearing on the City Defendants’ Application, as any good faith settlement determination in 

Case 3:13-cv-05442-MEJ Document 150 Filed 10/29/15 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

favor of the City Defendants may affect Plaintiffs’ claims against him. Id. 

McGrew did not attend the October 8, 2015 hearing. Dkt. No. 148. At the hearing, the 

Court indicated its preliminary approval of the City Defendants’ Application, but on the same day 

issued an Order permitting McGrew another opportunity to file objections to the Application by 

October 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 147. As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no 

objections or other response from McGrew. The Court has confirmed that McGrew’s counsel, 

Daniel Lawrence Baxter, received electronic notice of both the Order for McGrew to attend the 

hearing and the Order for McGrew to submit any objections (the “Good Faith Settlement Orders”). 

As the settlement between Plaintiffs and the City Defendants involves claims that may 

affect McGrew, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, ORDERS Daniel Lawrence Baxter to 

file a declaration by November 5, 2015, responding to the following:

(1) Did Mr. Baxter notify McGrew of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint?

(2) Did Mr. Baxter notify McGrew of the Good Faith Settlement Orders and the 

opportunity to file objections to the City Defendants’ Application for a Good Faith 

Settlement Determination?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05442-MEJ Document 150 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2