Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE (SUR-SURREPLY) TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

SURREPLY REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BILINGUAL SERVICES

00511588.WPD

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99180

Kristina M. Hall, SBN 196794

350 University Ave., Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

STANISLAUS COUNTY COUNSEL

Michael H. Krausnick

W. Dean Wright

County Administration Building

1010 10 Street, Suite 6400 th

Modesto, CA 95354

TEL: 209.525.6376

FAX. 209. 525.4473

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and STANISLAUS COUNTY

SHERIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, SOUTH

UNITED NEIGHBORS, DAVID CARO,

M A N U EL ESPIN O , H O RTEN CIA

FRANCO, LUPE HUESCA, FLORINDA

LAUREANO, ENA LOPEZ, BLANCA

MARTINEZ, GRISELDA MARTINEZ,

SALVADOR GUTIERREZ MARTINEZ,

JAZMIN MERCADO, JUAN MERCADO,

MAGDALENA MERCADO, JUAN PEREZ,

GLORIA PIMENTEL, ALFONSO RIVERA,

DARREN SCHAEFFER, AND ELVIRA

VILLALOBOS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF MODESTO, COUNTY OF

STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY

SHERIFF, STANISLAUS REGIONAL 911,

and the following individuals in their official

c apa c itie s: LES WEIDMAN, JIM

RIDENOUR, JANICE KEATING, BOB

DUNBAR, DENNY JACKMAN, GARRAD

Case No.: CIV-F 04-6121 LJO DLB

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE (SURSURREPLY) TO PLAINTIFFS’

SURREPLY REGARDING LAW

ENFORCEMENT AND BILINGUAL

SERVICES; ORDER GRANTING

LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 382 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE (SUR-SURREPLY) TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

SURREPLY REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BILINGUAL SERVICES

00511588.WPD

MARSH, WILL O’BRYANT, PAUL

C AR USO , JEFF GROVER , TO M

MAYFIELD, PAT PAUL, AND RAY

SIMON,

Defendants.

 /

Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF

hereby request the Court to provide them the opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ Surreply

to Defendants’ Reply to Opposition to the Motion for Summary Adjudication regarding Law

Enforcement and Bilingual Services, should the Court in fact entertain Plaintiffs’ Surreply.

Plaintiffs have sought leave from the Court to file a “Surreply” to Defendants’ Reply,

even the “request for leave” is in fact the Surreply unto itself and should be designated

accordingly. In fact, Plaintiffs did not even designate an area for the Court to approve their

request for leave; rather, they submitted the Surreply and summarily contend that

Defendants’ Motion should be denied. Defendants request only the opportunity to respond

to certain issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Surreply. Issues that Defendants would address would

include the following:

1. Plaintiffs’ continued misinterpretation of liability under Monell. Specifically,

Plaintiffs misconstrue Monell as providing for agency-type liability, which is

synonymous with the joint and several liability arguments Plaintiffs seek to

advance. The Supreme Court has clearly spoken as to this issue and held that

agency liability, also known as respondeat superior liability, is not available

under Monell to impute liability. What Plaintiffs seek to do in their Surreply

is to circumvent Monell and attempt to impute liability to the County for the

actions of an independent agency – something Monell does not allow. 

2. If granted leave to respond, Defendants also will argue that Plaintiffs’ attempts

to impute liability through JPA SR-911 to the County constitute nothing more

than Plaintiffs’ further attempt to advance their “entwinement” theory, which

the Court has previously rejected as applied to two independent public entities.

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 382 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

 Plaintiffs have also filed “Surreplies” in the past without leave of Court. On May 11, 2007, Plaintiffs filed 1

similar papers to the Joint City-County Summary Adjudication Motion regarding the Master Tax Sharing Agreement and

also to the City of Modesto’s Summary Adjudication Motion regarding Sewers.

3

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE (SUR-SURREPLY) TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

SURREPLY REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BILINGUAL SERVICES

00511588.WPD

Order of December 29, 2006, at 9:11-23.

3. Defendants also will refute Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding inapplicability of

the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) to federal civil

rights claims. In particular, Defendants will provide additional legal standards

and precedent that dictate that CTCA and Section 1983 operate independently

of one another and that the provisions of CTCA cannot impute liability to the

County for SR-911 under the parameters established by Monell. For example,

just as Defendants are not permitted to enjoy the immunities afforded by the

relevant Government Code sections in the CTCA, so too are its remaining

provisions inapplicable to federal civil rights action, particularly those seeking

equitable relief, as the CTCA is applicable only to actions for damages.

4. Defendants would respond to Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the testimony

and report of Dr. Stephen Klein. Notably, Defendants did not put Dr. Klein

testimony at issue; Plaintiffs first raised it in their Opposition. Defendants’

citation to Dr. Klein’s testimony and report was to rebut Plaintiffs’

characterization thereof. Defendants also will further accurately explain the

conclusions of Dr. Klein if permitted to file a Response.

The foregoing represent only a cursory overview of the arguments which Defendants

would raise and expand upon given leave by the Court to file a Response to Plaintiffs’

Surreply. It is plain that Plaintiffs have once again filed a Surreply without leave of the

Court in an attempt to salvage their case. Defendants thus respectfully reserve their right 1

to respond and hereby request that the Court provide them the Opportunity to do so if

Plaintiffs’ request is granted.

///

Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 382 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 4
P O R T E R * S C O T T

A TTOR N E Y S

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

SAC R A M E N T O , CA 95825

T EL: 916. 929.1481

FAX: 916. 927.3706

www.porterscott.com

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

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE (SUR-SURREPLY) TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

SURREPLY REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BILINGUAL SERVICES

00511588.WPD

Dated: June 21, 2007 PORTER SCOTT

A Professional Corporation

By /s/ Terence J. Cassidy 

Terence J. Cassidy

Attorney for Defendants

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF

 ORDER

This request by for leave to file a Response (“Sur-Surreply”) to Plaintiffs’ Surreply

to the Reply to Opposition to Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

of Motion for Summary Adjudication Regarding Law Enforcement and Bilingual Services

was filed by Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and STANISLAUS COUNTY

SHERIFF. The Court has reviewed the request and found good cause to grant Defendants’

request to file said Response. Therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants COUNTY OF STANISLAUS and

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF shall be permitted to file a Response (“Sur-Surreply”)

to the Reply to the Opposition designated above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 382 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 4