Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06420/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06420-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MOLINA, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6420 AWI TAG

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’S

JOINT RULE 60(b) MOTION,

STIPULATION FOR

DISMISSAL OF PARTIES AND

CLAIMS, and VACATING

HEARING OF MARCH 13,

2006

This case arises out of a series of arrests in Bakersfield, California by members of the

Bakersfield Police Department. Plaintiffs allege violations of their civil rights. The complaint

for damages contains fourteen (14) causes of action against thirty-two (32) defendants. 

In order to narrow the scope of the litigation, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed

order of dismissal on January 17, 2006. The proposed order was signed by this Court on January

19, 2006. On January 31, 2006, however, the parties filed this a Rule 60(b) motion. According

to the parties, a prior stipulation (hereafter “Stipulation #1”) had been proposed by Defendants

whereby eleven (11) causes of action and twenty-seven (27) defendants would be dismissed. 

Stipulation #1 was unacceptable to Plaintiffs, but a second stipulation (hereafter “Stipulation

#2”) that dismissed ten (10) causes of action and twenty-two (22) defendants was later agreed

upon. 

Unfortunately, Stipulation #1 was filed with the Court instead of Stipulation #2. Thus,

certain causes of action and certain parties where dismissed from this case even though the intent

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 28 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 5
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

of the parties was for some of the dismissed causes of action and parties to remain. According to

the parties’s joint Rule 60(b) motion and the supporting declarations of Plaintiffs’s counsel and

Defendants’s counsel, Stipulation #1 was filed inadvertently and by mistake. See January 25,

2006, Declaration of Bruce Nickerson; January 30, 2006, Declaration of Jacob Rivas. In order to

correct this error, the parties have filed this Rule 60(b) motion and request that the Court

“relieve” the parties of the January 19, 2006, order and give effect to Stipulation #2. 

DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), in relevant part, provides:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a

party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . .

The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) . . . not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); see also TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96

(9th Cir. 2001). The application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of district courts,

but, “as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is ‘remedial in nature and ... must be liberally applied.’” Id.

Here, the declarations of both Plaintiffs’s attorney and Defendants’s attorney make clear

that the wrong stipulation was filed by mistake and/or inadvertence. This motion is a joint

motion, so there is no opposition. Rule 60(b) is to be liberally applied and it is appropriate in this

case to relieve the parties of the January 19, 2006, on the grounds of mistake and inadvertence. 

Additionally, the Court will give effect to Stipulation #2.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’s joint Rule 60(b) motion is GRANTED and this Court’s Order of

January 19, 2006, which is document No. 26 in the Court’s Docket, is

VACATED;

2. The hearing on this matter that was set for March 13, 2006, is VACATED as

moot; 

3. As per the stipulation of the parties which is attached as Exhibit B to the January

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 28 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 5
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

30, 2006, Declaration of Jacob J. Rivas, the following causes of action and parties

are DISMISSED from this case with prejudice:

CAUSES OF ACTION

(1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment Claim

(2) 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) – Conspiracy

(3) 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – RICO

(4) California Civil Code § 52.1(b)

(5) California Unruh Act

(6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(7) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment Unreasonable Search

Claim

(8) Negligence

(9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

(10) Malicious Prosecution

PARTIES

(1) Bakersfield Police Department

(2) Sue Benham

(3) Kevin McDermott

(4) Harold Hansen

(5) Patricia M. Smith

(6) Galen B. Chow

(7) Officer S. Parker

(8) Officer R. Riddle

(9) Officer R. Robison

(10) Officer B. Hill

(11) Officer S. Miller

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 28 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

(12) Officer G. Jehle

(13) Officer B. Herrara

(14) Officer J. Gomez

(15) Det. S. Carvel

(16) Det. B. Norris

(17) Det. A. Garner

(18) Irma Carson

(19) Mike Maggard

(20) David Couch

(21) Jacquie Sullivan

(22) Mark Salvaggio;

4. The following parties remain in this case as Defendants:

(1) Officer R. Rice

(2) Officer M. Pflugh

(3) Officer M. Cottle

(4) Officer M. Eastman

(5) Chief Bill Rector

(6) City of Bakersfield

(7) Former Chief Brummer

(8) Former Chief Matlock

(9) Sgt. T. Pryor

(10) Sgt. Ennis; 

5. The following claims/causes of action remain in this case:

(1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment False Arrest Claim

(2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection/Selective

Enforcement Claim

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 28 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

(3) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Monell Claim; and

(4) Negligent Retention, Hiring, and Training.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 28 Filed 02/23/06 Page 5 of 5