Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00448/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00448-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

SHANNON GALLAGHER, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et. al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

No. C 04-448 SBA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shannon Gallagher’s Motion for Class Certification. 

After reviewing the papers filed by the parties, the Court finds that it would benefit from supplemental

briefing.

An unspoken but essential requirement to certification is that the class be “adequately defined and

clearly ascertainable.” See 5 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 23.21 (3d ed. 1997); DeBremaeker v.

Short, 433 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cir. 1970). A precise class definition is necessary to identify those class

members entitled to relief, entitled to notice, and bound by the judgment. Bratcher v. Nat’l Standard Life

Ins. Co. (In re Monumental Life Ins. Co.), 365 F.3d 408, 413 (5th Cir. 2004); Alliance to End

Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 977 n.6 (7th Cir. 1977). In the instant case, Plaintiff seeks to

certify two classes of women who were allegedly strip-searched at the San Mateo County Jail. Plaintiff’s

proposed class definitions, however, lack specific start or end dates for the class periods. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff is to provide a supplemental brief proposing a start

and end date for each of its two proposed classes. Plaintiff shall provide legal authority and factual support

providing a rational basis for her proposed dates. In addition, Plaintiff shall provide argument regarding

how, if at all, the proposed class periods affect Plaintiff’s argument that the classes are sufficiently

Case 4:04-cv-00448-SBA Document 22 Filed 06/06/05 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

numerous, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiff’s brief may not exceed ten (10) pages, and must

be filed no later than June 15, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants are to file a response to Plaintiff’s supplemental

brief. Defendants are to state whether they object to Plaintiff’s proposed class periods, and if so, the basis

for such objection. In addition, Defendants are to address any arguments made by Plaintiff with respect to

how the proposed class periods affect the numerosity of the proposed classes. Defendants’ response shall

not exceed ten (10) pages, and shall be filed no later than June 24, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion is CONTINUED TO July 12,

2005, at 1:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 6-6-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00448-SBA Document 22 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 2