Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599-171/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 00-cv-04599-TEH 

ORDER RE: COMPENSATION OF 

MONITOR AND COMPLIANCE 

DIRECTOR 

 

Earlier this week, the Oakland City Council refused to approve the annual renewal 

of the Monitor’s and Compliance Director’s contracts. Rather than approve a one-year 

extension, the Council approved only a two-month extension. This is untenable. 

As the Court has repeatedly reminded the City, the Monitor and Compliance 

Director are appointed by and derive their authority from the Court, not from any 

contractual arrangement with the City. One example of this can be found in the Court’s 

April 10, 2013 order, which clarified that which should have needed no clarification: 

To avoid any ambiguity, the Court makes explicit that which 

should have been clear from the outset: The scope of the 

Monitor’s work is governed by this Court and not by the 

Monitor’s contract with the City. If the City contends that it 

cannot pay the Monitor for any work ordered or directed by 

this Court that may go beyond the contract, then the City shall 

immediately notify the Court so that the Court can arrange for 

payment of the Monitor’s reasonable fees and expenses 

through the Court’s registry. 

Apr. 10, 2013 Order at 2 n.1. See also, e.g., Dec. 12, 2012 Order at 3 (“The Court expects 

the City to reach a prompt compensation agreement with the Compliance Director upon 

appointment. If an agreement or any payment is unduly delayed, the Court will order the 

City to pay the Compliance Director, as well as the Monitor, through the Court’s 

registry.”); Mar. 4, 2013 Order at 2 (“find[ing] it prudent to have the Compliance 

Director’s salary paid through the Court” and ordering the City to deposit sufficient funds 

to cover the first year of the Compliance Director’s salary). 

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 1124 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

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 

 The Monitor and current Compliance Director have previously reached contractual 

agreements with the City – albeit not always without delay – but such agreements are not 

required for their compensation. To avoid further delays, and to ensure the continuity of 

court oversight, the Court now orders that the Monitor and Compliance Director shall both 

be paid through the Court registry. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City shall deposit $100,000 into 

the Court registry on or before February 1, 2017. Within fourteen calendar days of the 

entry of each order approving payment to the Monitor or Compliance Director, the City 

shall deposit the full amount paid by the order such that the funds on deposit are 

replenished to $100,000. When both the Monitor’s and Compliance Director’s services are 

terminated, the Clerk shall disburse to the City the balance of funds on deposit in the 

registry, including any earned interest. 

Finally, the Court notes that the timing of the City’s defiance is somewhat 

suspicious, coming a week after the undersigned announced that he will be taking inactive 

status later this year. Defendants are reminded that the Court’s announcement does not 

diminish its authority, and Defendants remain obligated to achieve substantial, sustainable 

compliance as a prerequisite to ending court oversight. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/19/17 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 1124 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 2