Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SHANNON CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK

13-CV-00233-LHK 

FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING 

INSTRUCTION 

MARK ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Dated: February 10, 2015 _______________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 328 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

EVIDENCE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

Some evidence may be admitted for a limited purpose only. 

When I instruct you that an item of evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose, you must 

consider it only for that limited purpose and for no other. 

Source: Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions – 1.8 (2007 Edition) 

 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 328 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

FEDERAL INJUNCTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION

In August 2009, animal rights activists Joseph Cuviello and Deniz Bolbol obtained an injunction in 

federal court allowing them and a limited number of people acting in concert with them, including 

Plaintiffs, to conduct activity such as videotaping, leafletting, or otherwise protesting near the 

Oracle Arena (“Arena”) in Oakland, California. 

Under the injunction operating at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk held in Oakland, 

Plaintiffs were allowed access to the following areas to conduct activity: 

(1) A three-foot “walkway” running along the outside of the chain link fence that encloses 

the truck corral; 

(2) The barricaded corridor leading to the animal compound, the area outside of but directly 

adjacent to the corridor, and the gap between the corridor and the animal compound 

entrance except that there shall be a ten-foot buffer zone surrounding the entrance of the 

compound; (Plaintiffs could be temporarily moved from the gap to permit movement of 

equipment and animals.) 

(3) The upper west landing area, up to the point where the west ramp joins the landing; 

(4) One specific spot located in the area adjacent to the entrance to the north tunnel, which 

has a clear view of the entire tunnel; 

(5) The north ramp and landing; 

(6) The northeast stairs and base of the stairs; and 

(7) All exterior areas of the Arena and parking lot which are otherwise open to the public. 

The injunction was legally binding against the City of Oakland, Alameda County, the OaklandAlameda County Coliseum Authority, and the Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture LLC, among 

others. Feld Entertainment, Inc. and Michael Stuart were not legally bound by that injunction. 

You may consider the existence and parameters of the injunction only insofar as you find it 

relevant to whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the injunction would have found any of 

the alleged touchings or threatened touchings sustained by Plaintiffs to be offensive and/or whether 

Defendants, if they were aware of the injunction, acted with malice towards Plaintiffs. 

Source: Cuviello v. City of Oakland, No. C-06-5517 EMC, 2012 WL 5628325, at *1-2, *5 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (describing the August 2009 injunction and the August 2010 modification 

thereto). 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 328 Filed 02/10/15 Page 3 of 3