Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05503/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05503-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

MARK JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, THE CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION OF SAN FRANCISCO, and

THE SAN FRANCISCO FIRE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05503 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 4, 2010 AT 10:00 A.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 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

Case 4:09-cv-05503-JSW Document 45 Filed 08/03/10 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

questions contained herein.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order.

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. On what authority does Plaintiff rely to assert standing to object to the administration of

an examination that he is not eligible to take? Is the allegation that Plaintiff would be

harmed by administration of the examination for an advanced position when he alleges

discrimination in the administration of the examination he was qualified to take too

attenuated to create standing?

2. Is irreparable injury presumed because Plaintiff alleges violations of his Equal

Protection rights? If so, by what evidence does the City rebut the presumption?

3. On what basis does Plaintiff allege irreparable injury if the City plans to administer the

examination again within four to five years?

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:09-cv-05503-JSW Document 45 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2