Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03835/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03835-1/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

Stipulation to Dismiss and [Proposed] Order 1

CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413

CATHERINE LAGARDE, ESQ. SB# 209255

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. BONNER

1913 BRIDGEWAY

SAUSALITO, CA 94965 

TEL: (415) 331-3070

FAX: (415) 331-2738

HOWARD MOORE JR. ESQ. SB# 55228

FANIA E. DAVIS ESQ. SB# 87268

LAW OFFICES OF MOORE & MOORE

445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, SUITE 202

OAKLAND, CA 94610

Telephone: (510) 451-0104

Facsimile: (510) 451-5056

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Chief Prentice Earl Sanders, 

Espanola Sanders, David R. L. Robinson

and Ramona L. McCune-Robinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHIEF PRENTICE EARL SANDERS, 

ESPANOLA SANDERS, DAVID R. L.

ROBINSON and RAMONA L.

MCCUNE-ROBINSON

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, CLERK, BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, TERENCE HALLINAN

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants,

__________________________________/ 

CASE No.: C 04-3835 CRB

STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs and defendants, by their undersigned counsel stipulate as follows:

Pursuant to the order of the Court on November 2, 2007, defendants have filed

declarations stating that Plaintiff Chief Prentice Earl Sanders was not suspended or terminated

from his position of Chief of Police prior to his retirement on September 13, 2003. Since the

decision of the Court of Appeals remanding plaintiff’s defamation claim was predicated on 

Case 3:04-cv-03835-CRB Document 42 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 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

Stipulation to Dismiss and [Proposed] Order 2

Chief Sander’s having suffered an adverse employment action by being suspended temporarily

from his position, it now appears that it would not be possible to amend the complaint so as to

state a federal cause of action.

In the order of January 11, 2005, dismissing plaintiffs’ federal claims, this Court

dismissed the state law claims without prejudice to plaintiffs pursuing those claims in state court. 

On March 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed a civil action in Superior Court in and for the County of San

Francisco raising the state law claims. In the decision of the Ninth Circuit, that Court vacated

the order dismissing the state law claims in light of the remand to allow an amendment to the

complaint in this Court. Since plaintiffs are now stipulating to the dismissal of this case, it is

appropriate to reinstate the order permitting them to pursue their state law claims.

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate that the plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed with

prejudice and that the case should be dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs pursuing their

state law claims in the action pending in the Superior Court in and for the County of San

Francisco.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: December 7, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. BONNER

_____/s/______________________

 CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ.

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated December 7, 2007 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

 /s 

KIMBERLY A. BLISS, ESQ.

Deputy City Attorney

Attorney for Defendants

Case 3:04-cv-03835-CRB Document 42 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 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

Stipulation to Dismiss and [Proposed] Order 3

ORDER

The Court hereby dismisses plaintiffs’ federal claims with prejudice and dismisses the

case without prejudice to the plaintiffs pursuing their state law claims in state court. All pending

dates are hereby vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________ ____________________________

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

December 7, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:04-cv-03835-CRB Document 42 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 3