Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05425/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05425-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

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

JOHN F. CHAMPAGNE and GARY A.

CHAMPAGNE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-05425 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 APRIL 25, 2008 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

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.

Case 4:06-cv-05425-JSW Document 71 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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 Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

tentatively DENIES Plaintiffs’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) request.

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Before any action by Defendants, Plaintiffs had already served a three-day notice to

perform covenant or quit upon their tenant and had already filed an unlawful detainer

complaint to evict Mr. Vlastone. Plaintiffs successfully evicted the tenant and sold the

building with no detrimental effect on its value. Plaintiffs contend that they have a

substantive due process claim because they suffered an arbitrary deprivation of the right

to devote their property to any legitimate use. (See Opp. Br. at 11, citing Action

Apartment Association, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020, 1026

(9th Cir. 2007).) How did the City’s conduct interfere with Plaintiffs’ management of

the property? How were Plaintiffs’ rights to use their property infringed upon?

2. Are the four claims for misrepresentation solely against Defendant Gates due to her

August 5, 2005 declaration? (See Opp. Br. at 20, 21 n.10.) If the other agency

defendants are implicated in the alleged fraud, what are the predicate facts for those

claims and where are they found in the complaint? If, as Plaintiffs concede, the City

agencies are immune from liability (Opp. Br. at 21 n.13.), what is the basis for the civil

conspiracy claim? What evidence in the record before the Court indicates that

Defendant Gates “is guilty of actual fraud, corruption, or actual malice”? (See Cal.

Gov’t Code § 822.2.) 

3. Considering the Superior Court dismissed the code violation cause of action from the

eviction lawsuit prior to the revocation of the notices, on what basis do Plaintiffs

contend that the revocation caused them injury? 

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-05425-JSW Document 71 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 2