Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C00-4599 TEH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RELATE CASES

MATTHEW HORNUNG, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Respondents.

NO. C05-4825 EMC

These matters come before this Court on the City of Oakland’s administrative motion

to determine whether Hornung v. City of Oakland, Case No. C05-4825 EMC, is related to

Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH. After carefully considering both the

City’s moving papers and the timely opposition filed by the Hornung petitioners, the Court

concludes as follows: Although there may be serious questions regarding whether reinstating

Petitioners Hornung, Mabanag, and Siapno as officers of the Oakland Police Department

might impact the timely and successful implementation of the negotiated settlement

agreement in Allen, the Hornung case presents for judicial decision only whether Petitioners

have a right to compel arbitration, not what remedy Petitioners would be entitled to should

they be found to have a right to arbitrate and ultimately prevail at arbitration. The Hornung

petitioners correctly observe that the claimed right to arbitration in Hornung raises different

issues from the constitutional claims and claims for indemnity raised in Allen, and the Court

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 271 Filed 12/14/05 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

cannot say that it “appears likely” that a decision on whether the officers are entitled to

compel arbitration would lead to “an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or

conflicting results” if the two cases are not related. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a) (defining related

cases). Accordingly, this Court does not find the two cases to be related as defined by Civil

Local Rule 3-12(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/14/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 271 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2