Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03315/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03315-2/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 

ANA BIOCINI, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-03315-TEH 

ORDER RE JANUARY 11, 2016 

HEARING 

 

Counsel shall come prepared to address the following questions at the January 11, 

2016 hearing on Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment: 

For Plaintiffs 

1. Please respond to the Defendant officers’ argument that probable cause 

emerged to arrest Mr. Jaramillo for impeding their investigation of Ms. 

Biocini’s 911 call, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1). See Mot. at 16. 

2. For the 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7 (“Ralph Act”) causes of 

action, is there any evidence of racial animus in the record other than the fact 

that the Defendant officers were informed they needed to respond to the 

scene with a Spanish-speaking officer? If so, please summarize this 

evidence, with citations to the record. 

3. For the Monell cause of action, is there any evidence in the record – other 

than the circumstances surrounding Mr. Jaramillo’s tragic death – to support 

your claim that the City of Oakland provided inadequate training on how to 

appropriately utilize force, how to respond to the public’s calls for help, or 

on basic asphyxia training? If so, please summarize this evidence, with 

citations to the record. 

4. Since you sought leave to add Ms. Biocini as the proper plaintiff on only the 

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) claim (fourteenth cause 

of action), is the Court to understand that that you concede to summary 

judgment on the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) claim 

(twelfth cause of action) entirely? 

Case 3:14-cv-03315-TEH Document 45 Filed 01/07/16 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 

5. Please respond to Defendants’ argument that Ms. Biocini’s NIED claim is 

time-barred by either: (i) explaining why the claim is not time-barred; or (ii) 

explaining why the claim relates back to the original complaint despite 

Defendants’ arguments to the contrary. See Reply at 7. 

For Defendants

6. Can you cite any authority that specifically forecloses Plaintiffs’ argument 

that Defendant officers’ failure to place Mr. Jaramillo on his side while 

awaiting the paramedics was an objectively unreasonable failure to render 

medical aid? See Opp’n at 13-14. 

 

7. If the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to add a “failure-to-render-medical-aid” 

claim, how many additional depositions would you need to take and what 

other discovery do you anticipate would be necessary? How long do you 

estimate that this additional discovery would delay the trial date? 

8. Assuming that the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to add an NIED claim by Ms. 

Biocini, do you concede that such a claim would survive summary judgment 

on the basis of the facts in the record? If not, please argue why there is 

insufficient evidence in the record to support such a claim at this stage in the 

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/07/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03315-TEH Document 45 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2