Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02962/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02962-18/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

LOCAL 10, INTERNATIONAL

LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE

UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C03-2962 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AGAINST PLAINTIFF LOCAL 10,

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE

AND WAREHOUSE UNION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

all claims asserted by Plaintiff Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Union. 

After carefully considering the parties’ written arguments and the record in this case, the

Court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary and hereby cancels the hearing

scheduled for Monday, November 28, 2005. The Court now GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion as follows:

1. The motion is DENIED as to Local 10’s First Amendment claims because there are

disputed issues of material fact, thus making summary adjudication improper. For example,

while reasonable minds may differ, the Court concludes that whether police officers on the

scene recognized longshoremen as a separate group rather than as part of the protest, and

therefore whether any longshoremen were subjected to force as a result of union-based

animus, is a genuine issue for trial. Similarly, it is a genuine issue for trial whether an

observer would have reasonably understood that the union members were intending to

communicate respect for the demonstration by standing by, and therefore whether the

longshoremen were engaged in expressive conduct.

The Court need not rule on Defendants’ objections to evidence because the Court did

not rely on any of the disputed evidence in reaching these conclusions.

Case 3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document 243 Filed 11/18/05 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

2. The motion is GRANTED as to Local 10’s state constitutional claims. Although

Local 10 asserts claims based on free speech and free association under the California

constitution, the union failed to raise any opposition to Defendants’ argument that these

claims do not give rise to monetary damages. The Court construes such silence as a

concession. Because all injunctive and declaratory relief claims have been dismissed

pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, judgment to Defendants on these claims as

asserted by Local 10 is therefore proper.

3. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects as unopposed. Although Local 10

asserted various other claims in the third amended complaint, the union made clear in its

opposition papers that it only seeks damages based on its state and federal constitutional free

speech and free association claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/18/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document 243 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2