Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05030/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05030-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

CARLO ANTONIO DEL CONTE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPT. 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-05030 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 MARCH 30, 2007:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities, as well as

relevant declarations, and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in

those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal 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,

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.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for leave to amend and to stay

proceedings; tentatively GRANTS the City and County of San Francisco’s motion to dismiss;

Case 3:06-cv-05030-JL Document 40 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

tentatively DENIES the defendants Torrez, Schimke, Miller and Morin’s (collectively “Law

Firm Defendants”) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, tentatively DENIES the Law

Firm Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tentatively

GRANTS the Law Firm Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the

United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law.

The parties shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

1. In the operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that defendants Torrez and

Schimke induced him to sign an illegal lease. (First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) at 4.) 

Plaintiff also alleges that the Law Firm Defendants conspired with defendant Officer

Kerwitz to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights by threatening, coercing and harassing him on

multiple occasions, by unlawfully searcing his home, and by evicting him from his

house. (First Amended Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15, at 9-10.) 

a. How does Plaintiff maintain that any of the Law Firm Defendants violated his

First or Fifth Amendment rights?

b. How does Plaintiff maintain that inducing him to sign an allegedly illegal lease

violated any of his constitutional or civil rights?

 2. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Officer Kerwitz illegally searched his apartment. (FAC

at 9-10.) He also alleges that Kerwitz conspired with other defendants to threaten,

coerce and harass him on multiple occasions, and to evict him from his house. (FAC

¶¶ 14, 15.) How does Plaintiff maintain that Kerwitz or the City and County of San

Francisco violated his First or Fifth Amendment rights?

3. What facts alleged in the complaint indicate that the City and County of San Francisco

has a policy or custom that directly led to alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights? What facts alleged in the complaint indicate that defendant Kerwitz had final

policymaking authority with regard to San Francisco’s search or eviction policies? 

What facts could Plaintiff allege if given leave to amend?

4. Can Plaintiff plead with evidentiary support that Defendants conspired against him

because of his membership to a protected class in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)? See

Sever v. Ala. Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that under

§ 1985 a plaintiff must “demonstrate a deprivation of that right motivated by some

racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the

conspirators’ action”).

5. Can Plaintiff plead with evidentiary support that Defendants conspired against him

because of a disability, in violation of the ADA? See McGary v. City of Portland, 386

F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that

he was discriminated against by the public entity, and that such discrimination was by

reason of his disability). 

6. Does Plaintiff intend to allege § 1985 or ADA claims against defendant the City and

County of San Francisco?

Case 3:06-cv-05030-JL Document 40 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

7. In his opposition brief to the Law Firm Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff argues that

permitting defendant Millar to represent the Law Firm Defendants poses a conflict of

interest. Why does a conflict exist and how does any alleged conflict affect him? 

8. Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: March 21, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05030-JL Document 40 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 3