Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00470/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00470-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00470-DMR 

ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING RE MOTION TO AMEND

The court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on Defendant City of Hayward’s motion for 

leave to file counterclaims (Docket No. 50). Setting aside the relief requested in Defendant’s 

motion, the court questions whether Defendant has alleged plausible, viable counterclaims for

quantum meruit and violation of the Bane Act, California Civil Code section 52.1. Neither party 

addressed the viability of these claims in the motion papers other than on statute of limitations 

grounds. The court conducted research into these claims and was unable to find any quantum 

meruit or Bane Act claims made under similar circumstances. 

Given that Defendant seeks to raise these counterclaims close to the end of discovery, in 

the interest of judicial economy, the court orders the parties to submit additional briefing on this 

issue, as follows. By no later than March 30, 2015, Defendant shall file a brief that does not 

exceed eight pages, addressing 1) the basis and support for its proposed quantum meruit claim 

against Plaintiff for the cost of police and fire services “as requested by Plaintiff’s reprehensible 

conduct” and “rendered in response to the Domestic Violence Incident that he caused.” (Proposed 

Counterclaims ¶¶ 16, 19.) The court notes that to recover in quantum meruit, “a party need not 

prove the existence of a contract, but it must show the circumstances were such that the services 

were rendered under some understanding or expectation of both parties that compensation therefor 

was to be made.” Olsen v. Harbison, 191 Cal. App. 4th 325, 330 (2010) (internal citations and 

Case 4:14-cv-00470-DMR Document 57 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

quotation marks omitted); and 2) the basis and support for its proposed Bane Act claim based on 

Plaintiff’s conduct towards the alleged victim of domestic abuse, addressing the California 

Supreme Court’s holding in Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal. 4th 329, 334 (1998).

Plaintiff shall file an opposition that does not exceed eight pages by no later than April 6, 

2015. Any reply shall not exceed four pages and is due by April 9, 2015.

The March 26, 2015 hearing on the motion to amend and case management conference is 

VACATED. The court will reschedule the hearings upon the completion of the supplemental 

briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:14-cv-00470-DMR Document 57 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 2