Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01137/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01137-0/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

JENNIFER MILLER, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

WARREN E RUPF, et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C 07-01137 VRW

Related to C-02-02831

ORDER

On August 20, 2007, the court denied in full Contra 

Costa defendants’ and Forensic defendants’ motions to dismiss, and

additionally, denied in part and deferred ruling in part on the

motion to dismiss submitted by Solano County and Gary E Stanton

(herein “Solano defendants”). Doc #34. The court declined to rule

because Solano defendants improperly raised for the first time in

their reply brief a res judicata argument. Doc #31. Accordingly,

the court ordered supplemental briefing on the res judicata issue. 

Doc #34. 

The Solano defendants’ res judicata argument was based on

a dismissal with prejudice filed by Schwartz in an earlier state

court action against defendants Solano County and Solano County

Case 3:07-cv-01137-VRW Document 46 Filed 04/15/08 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

deputies Stanton, Louis Cameron and Paul M Wilcox. Schwartz’s

counsel submitted a declaration in this action stating that the

dismissal with prejudice was a mistake and that the dismissal

should have been without prejudice. Doc #36. On October 9, 2007,

the court ordered Schwartz to apply for state court relief from her

voluntary dismissal with prejudice and to report to the court on

the status of her efforts within sixty days. Doc #41.

Schwartz complied with the court’s order, and on March

21, 2008, filed with the court a copy of the state court order

vacating the erroneous dismissal with prejudice of Schwartz’s

earlier state court action. Doc #45, Exh A. The vacation of the

dismissal with prejudice moots the Solano defendants’ res judicata

argument, their sole remaining argument in support of their motion

to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Solano defendants’ motion to dismiss,

Doc #25, is DENIED.

The parties are ORDERED to attend a case management

conference on May 22, 2008, at 3:30 pm. If this date is not

acceptable, the parties should confer and propose an alternate date

to the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01137-VRW Document 46 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2