Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01636-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BARNSDALE, acting

president, Sacramento

County Deputy Sheriffs'

Association, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-07-1636 LKK/KJM 

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFFS'

ASSOCIATION, INC., dba

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY

SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION aka

SCDSA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On January 28, 2008, the court adopted the Special Master’s

findings and instructed, in an abundance of caution, that “the

parties [] inform the court by [Friday,] February 8, 2008 of any

outstanding issues; otherwise, the court will enter judgment and

close the case.” Neither party filed anything with the court.

That following Monday, on February 11, 2008, defendants took the

courtesy of providing the court with a proposed order. The order,

which the court approved on February 12, 2008, provided that

Case 2:07-cv-01636-LKK -KJM Document 53 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

“[j]udgment . . . is[] entered in favor of Defendants . . . on the

Complaint” and “in favor of Cross-Defendants . . . on the CrossComplaint.” 

Mr. Gorski now has filed a motion for reconsideration of that

order, protesting that: “Certification of the election has nothing

to do with Judgment on the merits of the case, which is what the

proposed order represents. For instance, the Second Cause of

Action, 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983, represents an action for threat of

force under color of authority to obtain property from a person

(i.e. Cody Blevins) who was not an employee of the Sheriff’s

Department or a member of the SCDSA.”

As an initial matter, if Mr. Gorski wanted to make it explicit

that a certain claim was dismissed without prejudice, it is

baffling why he did not, as the court ordered, “inform the court

. . . of any outstanding issues [that would prevent] enter[ing]

judgment and clos[ing] the case.” Mr. Gorski made the choice not

to heed the court’s instruction.

Furthermore, the February 12, 2008 order states that the court

has adopted the findings and recommendations of Special Master

Eugene Lynch and accordingly enters judgment in favor of the

defendants on the complaint and in favor of the cross-defendants

on the cross-complaint. Presumably, any issue that the special

master did not reach was similarly not part of this court’s

judgment, given that the court expressly relied upon his findings

and recommendations.

If the parties disagree with this tentative ruling, they shall

Case 2:07-cv-01636-LKK -KJM Document 53 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

submit further briefing by February 19, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 15, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01636-LKK -KJM Document 53 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 3