Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02239/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02239-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACY COBINE, NANETTE DEAN,

CHRISTINA RUBLE, LLOYD PARKER,

GERRIANNE SCHULZE, SARAH HOOD,

AARON KANGAS, LYNETTE VERA,

AUBREY SHORT, MARIE ANNTONETTE

KINDER, and JOHN TRAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF EUREKA, EUREKA POLICE

DEPARTMENT, and ANDREW MILLS, in his

official capacity as Chief of Police,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 16-02239 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS RE MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 29, 2016

AT 2:00 P.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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 authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities 

only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local 

Case 4:16-cv-02239-JSW Document 20 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on

such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this

case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.

The parties shall each have 40 minutes each to address the following questions:

1. Do Plaintiffs make only an as-applied challenge to the Eureka Municipal Code and not a

facial challenge?

2. Based on the recent ruling in Acosta v. City of Salinas, 2016 WL 1446781 (N.D. Cal. April

13, 2016), do Plaintiffs maintain that the Notice to Vacate provides insufficient procedural 

safeguards or insufficient notice to abrogate Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights?

3. Plaintiffs contend that the number of unsheltered homeless individuals in the City of Eureka

outnumber the number of available shelter beds and other temporary housing units in the

area roughly by a factor of three to one. (See, e.g., Declaration of Paul Boden at ¶¶ 7, 11, 12;

Declaration of Dr. Barry Zevin at ¶ 18.) Defendants represent that there are sufficient

shelters and temporary housing options to house the current members of the Palco Marsh

community. (See Declaration of Cyndy Day-Wilson at ¶ 22 (citing adoption but not

effectuation of City Resolution to increase available beds to account for Palso Marsh

residents).) The Court notes that the 2015 Point-in-Time Count found that of the 1,319

homeless individuals surveyed, 844 of them, or 64.3% were unsheltered, but it is not clear if

that was by choice or by necessity. (Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. L.)

a. The Court requests precise citations to the record for the number of actual

homeless individuals in the Palo Marsh area currently requiring shelter and

the number of currently available shelter beds and other temporary housing

units in the area.

b. If the parties continue to dispute this question, is the resolution of the issue

more appropriately handled on a full record? Can Eureka delay for several

weeks until the factual issue is fully briefed and presented to the Court?

4. Plaintiffs also contend that there are restrictions on certain shelters that some homeless

individuals are unable to meet, thereby preventing them from obtaining shelter space even

when the beds may remain unoccupied. Where specifically in the record is there evidence of

this contention?

5. On the issue of timing for the project, will Eureka be harmed by a delay of several weeks for

enforcement of the Notice to Vacate? Could the parties agree to a hearing on the full

evidentiary record on May 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.?

6. What is Eureka’s position on the applicability of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act?

7. Should the Court grant the restraining order, do Defendants contend a bond is necessary?

8. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-02239-JSW Document 20 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2