Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02558/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02558-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ANTHONY MARES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02558 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005: 

The Court tentatively GRANTS motion for summary judgment filed by defendant the 

City and County of San Francisco. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points

and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those

pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the

opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) Does Plaintiff Anthony Mares, Jr. dispute that he must present evidence demonstrating

that he did not make the alleged comments in order to state a claim for violation of due

process based on stigmatizing charges? If so, on what authority does he rely? 

(2) Is Plaintiff’s claim that the City violated his right to due process premised in part on the

fact that the City did not rehire him? If so, what authority supports Plaintiff’s contention

that he has a property interest in being rehired as a probationary recruit?

(3) Plaintiff makes several references to retaliation in his opposition brief. Is Plaintiff

asserting a claim for retaliation? If so, under what statute or other authority is Mares

bringing such a claim, and where in his complaint does Plaintiff allege such a claim?

(4) Does Plaintiff dispute that he may not bring a claim for breach of contract against the

City because the terms and conditions of his employment were set by statute? If so, on

what authority does Plaintiff rely?

(5) Does Plaintiff dispute that he must comply with the California Government Tort Claims

Act before filing any state law claims against the City? If so, on what authority does he

rely? Does Plaintiff contend that he complied with the requirements of the California

Government Tort Claims Act? If so, on what evidence in the record does Plaintiff rely?

(6) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE