Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04437/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04437-20/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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE 

A/73359586.1

Mark E. Merin (SBN 043849) – mark@markmerin.com 

Cathleen A. Williams (SBN 068029) – cathleen@markmerin.com 

W. Gordon Kaupp (SBN 226141) – gordon@markmerin.com 

LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN

2001 P Street, Suite 100 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 443-6911 

Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 

Andrew C. Schwartz (SBN 64578) – schwartz@csmlaw.com 

CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK 

2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 947-1147 

Facsimile: (925) 947-1131 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PETER OBSTLER (SBN 171623) - peter.obstler@bingham.com 

JEE YOUNG YOU (SBN 241658) - jeeyoung.you@bingham.com 

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4067, U.S.A. 

Telephone: (415) 393-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 

JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN 055632) -james.fitzgerald@mcnamaralaw.com 

MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, 

SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES LLP 

1211 Newell Ave. 

Post Office Box 5288 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 939-5330 

Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Co0oC

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Co0oC

ROSALETY BARNETT, ADELINE CHAN, and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO: C 04-04437 TEH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND 

BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 191 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE 

A/73359586.1

STIPULATION 

Pursuant to the Northern District of California Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff 

Adeline Chan (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s 

Department, and Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf (“Defendants”), hereby stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Bull v. City and 

County of San Francisco 565 F. 3d 964, which all parties agree constituted a change of law necessitating 

reconsideration of prior rulings in this case, since it articulated a different theory of liability for 

evaluating whether jail strip searches violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted prior to housing 

inmates in the general population; and 

WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, by minute order, the Court vacated its Case Management 

Conference date and granted leave to Defendants to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Defendants’ 

prior motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; and 

WHEREAS, on April 5, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and Motion for 

Summary Judgment; and 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulate that the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, and that 

the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted as to the claims of Plaintiff Adeline Chan and all 

members of the class who were only strip searched once prior to housing; and 

WHEREAS Plaintiffs have determined from discovery already conducted that a portion of the 

class, namely, approximately 47 female class members, were subjected to a second strip search before 

being housed under Defendants’ uniform policies, the liability for which Defendants dispute as a matter 

of law and fact; and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have already identified, located, and received a declaration from a class 

member, Vanessa Hunt, who seeks to intervene in this action to represent this class of 47 women, and 

Plaintiffs are preparing a Motion to Amend the Complaint to conform the strip search claim to the theory 

of liability articulated by Bull v. San Francisco and to allow proposed class members to intervene; and 

WHEREAS the parties have conferred and believe that the most expeditious manner in which to 

address the impact of Bull v. San Francisco on this case is (1) for the Parties to stipulate to the granting 

of Defendants’ pending Motion for Reconsideration, which is scheduled for May 17, 2010; (2) for the 

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 191 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE 

A/73359586.1

Plaintiff to file a partial non-opposition to Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment as to all 

individual and class claims relating to the initial prehousing strip search at the jail, which strip searches 

are governed by Bull, reserving the right to file a Motion to Amend the Complaint as to the second, 

successive strip search of the 47 women which Class Member Vanessa Hunt seeks to represent (the 

“New Class Claims”); and (3) for the Defendants to oppose this Motion For Leave to Amend the 

Complaint on whatever grounds they deem appropriate; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have determined that all such Motions, including the motion hearing 

presently set for May 17, 2010, can and should be heard on the same day, rather than maintaining the 

current hearing date for Defendants’ pending Motions for Summary Judgment, because Plaintiffs’ and 

Defendants’ cross Motions are closely related as to the subject matter and the issues to be adjudicated; 

and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have agreed to file their Motion to Amend by May 10, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, for purposes of efficiency and judicial economy, Plaintiffs and Defendants have 

agreed to consolidate the hearing date for all motions and request that the Court vacate the May 17, 2010 

hearing date and reschedule it and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend on June 21, 2010; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT: 

1. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, and Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment should be granted as to the claims of Plaintiff Adeline Chan and all members of the 

class other than those claims alleged on behalf of the 47 women referred to above in the Recitals. 

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend and Permit the Intervention of Vanessa Hunt 

shall be filed on or before May 10, 2010 (the “Motion for Leave”); 

3. Defendants reserve their right to assert all defenses, and arguments, that were previously 

asserted or will be asserted in this case to oppose the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave and/or the New Class 

claims; 

4. Defendants’ shall file their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave on or before June 

7, 2010; 

5. Plaintiffs’ shall file any Reply in support of their Motion for Leave by June 14, 2010; 

\\\ 

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 191 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

Barnett, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.; USDC, No. Dist., Case No. C 04-4437 THE 

A/73359586.1

6. The hearing for all of these Motions shall be consolidated and the date for hearing set on 

June 21, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. before this Court in Courtroom 12. 

DATED: April 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 

 CASPER MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK 

 /s/ - “Mark E. Merin” 

 BY:____________________________________

 Mark E. Merin 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DATED: April 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP and 

 MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, 

 SLATTERY, PFALZER & BORGES, LLP 

 /s/ - “Peter Obstler” 

 BY:____________________________________

 Peter Obstler 

 Attorney for Defendants 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause appearing, PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _____________________

 __________________________________________

 HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT 

** **except that the motion hearing shall be set on June 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM, and not June 21, 2010.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

04/22/10

Case 3:04-cv-04437-TEH Document 191 Filed 04/23/10 Page 4 of 4