Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02412/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02412-0/pdf.json

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

---

Stipulation - 1 - 

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

ANDREA M. MILLER [SBN: 88992] 

NAGELEY, MEREDITH & MILLER, INC. 

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

Telephone: (916) 386-8282 

Facsimile: (916) 386-8952 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRENT H. BEEBE AND MARSHA A. BEEBE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRENT H. BEEBE and MARSHA A. 

BEEBE, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CHARLES KELSON, et al., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: CIV-S-98-2412DFL/PAN

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b) 

On September 13, 2001, after hearing defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, 

this court issued its Order granting in part defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on 

the claims brought by plaintiffs in this matter against Charles Kelson, et al. Those claims 

include the following: 

1. That defendant Kelson deprived plaintiff’s of their Fourth Amendment rights in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by including false and misleading statements in 

his affidavit in support of the application to search Bayou Seafood. 

2. That defendants Kelson, Ward, Flood, Young, Richards, and Fawrup deprived 

plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by 

exceeding the scope of the search warrant during the search implicated in the 

complaint. 

Case 2:98-cv-02412-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 5
Stipulation - 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

3. That defendants Kelson, Ward, Flood, Young, Richards, and Fawrup caused 

plaintiffs to be falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment by applying for a warrant and engaging in a series of acts that led 

to their arrest without probable cause. 

4. That Alden’s press release of July 1994, which stated that the plaintiffs had 

been arrested and had agreed to the conspiracy for which they had been 

charged, denied them due process of law under the Fourth Amendment in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violated state libel law. Plaintiffs claim both 

Alden and Kelson are liable. 

5. That defendant Alden unlawfully disclosed private information about plaintiff 

Brent Beebe to the Galt police in violation of sections 11076 and 11105 of the 

California Penal Code, section 432.7 of the California Labor Code, and Article 

I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. 

6. That defendants Kelson and Alden conspired to deprive plaintiffs of their 

federal civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and their civil 

rights guaranteed by the California Constitution by withholding exculpatory 

evidence from the grand jury. 

7. That defendants’ violations of their federal constitutional rights also give rise to 

state law causes of action for invasion of plaintiffs’ right to privacy under the 

California Constitution, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional 

distress. 

The result of that Order after a hearing on defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

was that defendants Charles Kelson, Jack Richards and Mary Elizabeth Alden were 

dismissed from the action entirely, and plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were 

Case 2:98-cv-02412-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 5
Stipulation - 3 - 

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

foreclosed with the exception of that claim identified as (2), supra, regarding exceeding 

the scope of a search warrant as against defendants Ward, Flood, Young and Fawrup. 

Subsequent to that ruling the parties have met and conferred on several occasions 

and have participated in a settlement conference conducted by Magistrate Judge John 

Moulds. No settlement was reached, but the parties met and conferred and determined 

that the most efficient, both for the court and the litigants, and effective way to proceed in 

this case is to request that the Court direct that a final Judgment be entered with regard 

to Charles Kelson,.Jack Richards and Mary Elizabeth Alden on the aforementioned 

claims pursuant to the terms of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This 

action will allow the plaintiffs to appeal this court's rulings that resolved the majority of the 

claims in this case and, if that appeal is successful, to try this case in a single unified 

proceeding. 

In the absence of such an Order, the parties will be required to try the remaining 

issue with regard to claim (2), then to appeal the rulings on the other claims and, if the 

appeal is successful, to try those issues in a second trial arising out of the same basic 

nucleus of operative facts and circumstances. 

The parties further request that no further action be ordered in this case until the 

foreclosed claims can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals thereby assuring 

that there shall be only one trial of the subject matter involved in this case, rather than 

one trial now, and potentially another after appeal. 

DATED: July 28, 2005 NAGELEY, MEREDITH & MILLER, INC. 

By: ________/s/________________ 

 ANDREA M. MILLER 

 Atorneys for Plaintiffs BRENT H. 

BEEBE AND MARSHA A. BEEBE 

Case 2:98-cv-02412-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 5
Stipulation - 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

DATED: July 28, 2005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 Department of Justice 

 By_____/s/______________________ 

 ROBERT L. COLLINS, 

 Deputy Attorney General 

 For BILL LOCKYER 

 Attorney General 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:98-cv-02412-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 4 of 5
Stipulation - 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

ORDER

The court, having read the foregoing stipulation of counsel and being fully apprised 

of the facts and circumstances of this case, hereby orders that Final Judgment shall be 

entered on the matters decided by this court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order 

granting Summary Adjudication, dated March 28, 2002, and this court’s Memorandum of 

Opinion and Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, dated April 9, 2002, 

pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Entry of judgment for 

defendants Kelson, Alden, and Richards at this stage of the proceedings will aid in the 

efficient resolution of this action insofar as the claims that will be finally adjudicated by the 

Order were separate, distinct, and independent of any of the other claims involved and 

immediate review by the appellate court will not be mooted by any future developments in 

this case. Neither will the Order produce any possibility that the appellate court will have 

to decide the same issues more than once even if there are subsequent appeals in the 

case. Neither is there any just reason to delay the parties’ access to appeal on the 

issues adjudicated. 

All other aspects of this case shall be stayed pending resolution of an appeal to be 

filed by plaintiffs no later than 30 days from the entry of judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 10, 2005 

 /S/ David F. Levi ______________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

Case 2:98-cv-02412-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 5 of 5