Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-02278/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-02278-8/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

DEANNA L. FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C00-2278 TEH 

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

ORDER OF PAYMENT OF

FUNDS FROM SPECIAL

DEPOSIT FUND

In conjunction with the parties’ jointly filed July 16, 2007 status statement, Plaintiff

Deanna Freitag filed a proposed order of payment from the special deposit fund created as a

result of this Court’s December 4, 2003 Order Granting Stay of Execution of Judgment

Without Supersedeas Bond. Pursuant to the December 4, 2003 order, Defendants placed

$1,700,000 in a special deposit fund pending Defendants’ appeal of the jury’s verdict and

this Court’s grant of injunctive relief. The order provided that:

If Defendants are successful on appeal, then the restrictions on

Defendants’ ability to spend the $1,700,000 set aside in

accordance with this order shall be dissolved once the [United

States Court of Appeals for the] Ninth Circuit issues its mandate. 

If, on the other hand, Defendants are unsuccessful on appeal, then

they shall pay the required funds to Plaintiff within thirty days,

without any further action required by Plaintiff or her counsel. 

Dec. 4, 2003 Order at 5. The parties now dispute whether Defendants were “successful” or

“unsuccessful” on appeal within the meaning of the Court’s order.

The Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming in part, reversing in part, and

remanding in part this Court’s post-trial rulings on September 13, 2006, and made minor

amendments to that decision on November 3, 2006. Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir.

2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 918 (2007). The appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict on

Freitag’s Title VII claims and also affirmed this Court’s grant of injunctive relief. The court

Case 3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document 516 Filed 07/20/07 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

reversed the First Amendment retaliation judgment against Defendant Lopez based on

insufficiency of the evidence, and it remanded the remaining First Amendment retaliation

claims, as well as the damages and attorneys’ fees awards as necessary, to this Court for

further consideration in light of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006). On June 6,

2007, this Court found for Plaintiff on all remanded issues, and Defendants filed a timely

appeal on June 28, 2007.

As long as Defendants’ appeal remains pending, Defendants cannot be said to have

been unsuccessful on appeal. If this Court’s June 6, 2007 order is reversed, then the

monetary damages or amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to Plaintiff may ultimately be

reduced. The reasoning in this Court’s December 4, 2003 order therefore continues to apply,

and the Court thus finds good cause to DENY Plaintiff’s request for an order that $1,006,500

be immediately paid to Plaintiff and her attorneys out of the special deposit fund.

The Court notes, however, that Defendants have already paid Plaintiff’s counsel

$593,500 out of the special deposit fund pursuant to a stipulation reached by the parties and

ordered by the Court on April 25, 2007. By denying Plaintiff’s request for an order of

payment, the Court does not preclude any future similar stipulations for payment while

Defendants’ latest appeal remains pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/20/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document 516 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 2