Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00310/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00310-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 -1- 

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC 

MARK E. MERIN, ESQ (SBN 043849) 

CATHLEEN A. WILLIAMS, ESQ. (SBN 068029) 

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 

2001 P Street, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 443-6911 

Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305) 

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE 

A Professional Corporation 

555 12th Street, Suite 1800 

P. O. Box 12925 

Oakland, CA 94604-2925 

Telephone: (510) 834-4350 

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA 

COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. PLUMMER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL SCHAFFER, on behalf of himself 

and all those similarly situated; 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA 

COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES C. 

PLUMMER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND 

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, ALAMEDA 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 1 

THROUGH 50, AND ROES 1 THROUGH 

20, INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06 0310 MMC 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL

DATE: November 16, 2007 

TIME: 9:00 a.m. 

CTRM: 7 

JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

This matter came on regularly for a Fairness Hearing on November 16, 2007, in Courtroom 

7 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney presiding. Plaintiff Class was 

represented by Class Counsel Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin; Defendants 

were represented by Gregory J. Rockwell of the firm Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe. 

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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- 

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC 

After considering the submissions of the parties, including the Stipulated Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action, together 

with the extensive exhibits attached thereto; the unopposed Application of Plaintiff’s Class 

Counsel for Award of Attorneys= Fees and Costs; the Joint Submission of the Parties in Support of 

Final Approval of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement; the arguments of counsel; the 

submission from the Class Claims Administrator, and the objections to the settlement filed with 

the Court, 

IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. On June 20, 2007, this Court entered its order preliminarily approving settlement of 

the above-captioned class action. Since the entry of the Court=s Preliminary Order, in accordance 

with the Amended Stipulation of Settlement as proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the requisite 

notice of the Settlement, with opt-out and objection information, was published in the East Bay 

Express on July 18, 25 and August 1, 2007, and in the Daily Review, the Oakland Tribune, and the 

Tri-Valley Herald on July 19, 25, and 31, 2007. The notice of the Settlement and approved claim 

forms, were posted by First Class Mail to the last-known address of each person in the Settlement 

Class. Both the published notice and the mailed notice specified that Claim Forms had to be 

delivered to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later than October 11, 2007. 

2. Both the published and mailed notices specified that any person who chooses to 

object to the Settlement, either personally or through counsel, and desired to appear at the Fairness 

Hearing, was required to submit a Notice of Intention to appear, together with written arguments in 

support of any objection, by October 11, 2007. Five written objections were received by counsel 

and filed with the Court.

3. The Court finds that the Class should be and hereby is certified under Rule 23(a) 

and Rule 23(b)(3) because it satisfies all of the requirements for certification as recited by the 

Court in the hearing on the fairness of the settlement on November 16, 2007. 

4. The Court is satisfied from all of the memoranda of law, declarations, and exhibits 

submitted to the Court that the Amended Stipulation of Settlement is fair, and the Court now finds 

for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on November 16, 2007, that the Amended 

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 -3- 

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC 

Stipulation of Settlement is fair and finally approves it as such. The Amended Stipulation of 

Settlement is incorporated herein by this reference as if set out in full. 

5. The “Settlement Class” means all of those persons who are members of the 

following defined classes who, during the class periods identified below, were booked at Alameda 

County Santa Rita or Glenn Dyer Jails, assigned to a housing unit and strip searched at said 

facilities prior to arraignment on the charges for which they were booked: 

a. The following persons shall be referred to as the “Group Search Class”: (1) 

All arrestees booked into Santa Rita Jail during Class Period 1 on a Felony 

involving violence, drugs or weapons (“VDW”), or on a VDW Misdemeanor 

Offense, who were assigned to a housing unit and who underwent a GROUP 

SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on which they were booked during 

Class Period 1 (January 17, 2004, through December 31, 2006); (2) All arrestees 

booked into Santa Rita Jail during Class Period 1 on a non-VDW Offense, but who, 

during the Five (5) years prior to such Class Period 1 booking, had been arrested in 

ALAMEDA COUNTY on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense, or who, at the 

time of such Class Period 1 booking, were required to submit to a search of their 

person as a condition of parole or probation, who were assigned to a housing unit 

and who underwent a GROUP SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on 

which they were booked during Class Period 1. 

b. The following persons shall be referred to as the “Illegal Search Class”: All 

arrestees booked into Santa Rita or Glenn Dyer Jails during Class Period 2 (January 

17, 2004, through August 31, 2006) on a non-VDW Felony or Misdemeanor 

Offense, except those who, at the time of such Class Period 2 booking, had been 

arrested in ALAMEDA COUNTY in the Five (5) years prior to such Class Period 2 

booking on a VDW Felony or Misdemeanor Offense, or who, at the time of such 

Class Period 2 booking, were required to submit to a search of their person as a 

condition of parole or probation, who were assigned to a housing unit and who 

underwent an ILLEGAL SEARCH prior to arraignment on the charges on which 

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

 -4- 

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC 

they were booked during Class Period 2.

6. Persons who previously commenced civil litigation challenging the legality of any 

strip search at the Alameda County jails during the class period and have prevailed, settled or had 

their complaints denied on their merits, and persons who have given timely notice of their election 

to be excluded from the Settlement Class are not included in the Settlement Class. 

7. With the exception of the five individuals identified on Exhibit A hereto, who 

submitted timely requests to the Claims Administrator to opt out of the Amended Stipulation of 

Settlement, all claims and complaints of the named Representative Plaintiff, together with all 

persons in the Settlement Class, are now dismissed with prejudice as to all of the Released 

Persons, defined to include all Defendants, their predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together 

with past, present and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys and/or agents of the 

County of Alameda. Claims and complaints of such persons are now forever barred, and all 

Settlement Class Members are enjoined from asserting against any Released Persons any and all 

claims which the Settlement Class Members had, have, or may have in the future arising out of the 

facts alleged in the complaint. 

8. Each Released Person is released from the claims which any Settlement Class 

Member has had or may in the future have against any such Released Persons arising out of the 

facts in the complaint. 

9. This Court explicitly finds that the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, which is 

now made final by this Judgment, was entered into in good faith, is fair and reasonable, and 

adequate, and is in the best interest of the Class. The Court expressly finds the amount of 

attorney’s fees and costs sought to be fair and reasonable and expressly approves payment to class 

counsel, Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, in the amount of One Million, One 

Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($1,175,000.00), as and for attorney fees and costs, for 

the representation of Settlement Class Members herein, to be paid as provided in the Amended 

Stipulation of Settlement. 

10. The Court further explicitly approves payment from the payment fund of a total of 

Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) to be distributed to the Representative Plaintiff, 

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

 -5- 

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

Daniel Schaffer vs. County of Alameda, et al.; USDC-Nor. Dist. #C06-0310 MMC 

Daniel Schaffer, as specified in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement; however, if the amount 

allocated for the payment of approved claims of Settlement Class Members is not adequate to pay 

all claims without pro-rata reduction, the payment to the Representative Plaintiff shall be reduced 

by up to Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) or the amount necessary fully to satisfy all 

claims, whichever is less. The Court finds the amount is fair and adequate in view of the damages 

suffered by the Representative Plaintiff and the efforts he expended in litigating this case in the 

more than two years from the time the original claim was filed. 

11. Claims have been submitted and, in accordance with the claims processing 

procedure specified in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement, will be reviewed, valued, and paid 

by the Claims Administrator from funds provided by the Defendants as soon as practicable 

following the effective date of this Judgment, meaning the date it is entered and becomes final. 

Such Judgment will be deemed final only upon the expiration of the time to appeal or, if a notice 

of appeal is filed in this matter, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writ of certiorari. 

12. The Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties in this 

action, including Defendants and all Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe 

and enforce the Settlement in accordance with the terms for the mutual benefit of all of the parties. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint in this 

action be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be and the same hereby is entered pursuant 

to the terms of this Order. 

Dated: November 26, 2007 

______________________________________ 

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

Judge, United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Case 3:06-cv-00310-MMC Document 73 Filed 11/26/07 Page 5 of 5