Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04437/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04437-22/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

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN’S CLAIMS 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE

Mark E. Merin (SBN 043849) – mark@markmerin.com 

Cathleen A. Williams (SBN 068029) – cathleen@markmerin.com 

W. Gordon Kaupp (SBN 226141) – gordon@markmerin.com 

LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN

2001 P Street, Suite 100 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 443-6911 

Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 

Andrew C. Schwartz (SBN 64578) – schwartz@csmlaw.com 

CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK

2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 947-1147 

Facsimile: (925) 947-1131 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Peter Obstler (SBN 171623) - peter.obstler@bingham.com 

Jee Young You (SBN 241658) - jeeyoung.you@bingham.com 

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4067, U.S.A. 

Telephone: (415) 393-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 

James V. Fitzgerald, III (SBN 055632) -james.fitzgerald@mcnamaralaw.com 

MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES LLP 

1211 Newell Ave. 

Post Office Box 5288 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 939-5330 

Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Co0oC

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Co0oC

ROSALETY BARNETT, VANESSA HUNT, and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO: C 04-04437 TEH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF 

ADELINE CHAN’S CLAIMS AND SUCH 

PART OF THE CLASS THAT SHE 

REPRESENTS 

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 205 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 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

2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN’S CLAIMS 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE

STIPULATION 

Pursuant to the Northern District of California Local Rules 77-2(c) and Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 41, Plaintiff Adeline Chan (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa 

County Sheriff’s Department, and Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf (“Defendants”), hereby 

stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulate that the claims of Plaintiff Adeline Chan shall be dismissed with 

prejudice pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 

565 F.3d 964, issued on February 9, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, the claims of all class members who were subject to only one strip search, prior to 

housing, without reasonable suspicion, shall also be dismissed; 

WHEREAS female class members subjected to a second strip search before being housed under 

Defendants’ uniform policies, shall remain as class members, the liability for which Defendants dispute 

as a matter of law and fact, without being dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT: 

 Plaintiff Adeline Chan and the class of persons she represents who were subject to only one strip 

search, prior to housing, without reasonable suspicion, shall be dismissed. 

DATED: June 24, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 

 CASPER MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK 

 /s/ - “Mark E. Merin” 

 BY:____________________________________

 Mark E. Merin 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DATED: June 24, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP and 

 MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, 

 SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES, LLP 

 /s/ - “Peter Obstler” 

 BY:____________________________________

 Peter Obstler 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 205 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 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

3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF ADELINE CHAN’S CLAIMS 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause appearing, PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _____________________

 __________________________________________

 HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

06/24/10

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 205 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 3