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

Page 1

EMILY ROBINSON, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-1617 FCD DAD

KIMBERLY KOZLOWSKI, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-2381 FCD DAD

 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849

2001 P Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: 916/443-6911

Facsimile: 916/447-8336

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 099180

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: 916/929-1481

Facsimile: 916/927-3706

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMILY ROBINSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO: CIV.S-04-1617 FCD/PAN

ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF

DISMISSAL

KIMBERLY KOZLOWSKI, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO: CIV.S-04-2381 FCD DAD

This matter came on regularly for a Fairness Hearing on March 2, 2007, in Courtroom 2 of

the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr. presiding. Plaintiff Class was

represented by Class Counsel Mark E. Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin; and Defendants

were represented by Terence J. Cassidy of the law firm of Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant.

After considering the submissions of the parties, including the Stipulated Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action, together with

the extensive exhibits attached thereto; the unopposed Application of Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel for

Case 2:04-cv-02381-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Page 2

EMILY ROBINSON, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-1617 FCD DAD

KIMBERLY KOZLOWSKI, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-2381 FCD DAD

 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; the Joint Submission of the Parties in Support of Final

Approval of the Stipulation of Settlement; the arguments of counsel; and the submission from the

Class Claims Administrator, 

IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. On August 11, 2006, this Court entered its order preliminarily approving settlement

of the above-captioned consolidated class action. Since the entry of the Court’s Preliminary Order,

in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement as proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the

requisite notice of the Settlement, with opt-out and objection information, was published in the

Sacramento Bee on September 11, 21, and 24, 2006, in the Sacramento News and Review on

September 14, 21, and 28, 2006, and in the Comic Press News on October 20, 2006. The notice of

the Settlement and approved claim forms, were posted by First Class Mail to the last-known address

of each person in the Settlement Class. Both the published notice and the mailed notice specified

that Claim Forms had to be delivered to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later than January

8, 2007. 

2. Both the published and mailed notices specified that any person who chose to object

to the Settlement, either personally or through counsel, and desired to appear at the Fairness

Hearing, was required to submit a Notice of Intention to appear, together with written arguments in

support of any objection, by February 16, 2007. No written objections were received by the Court.

Furthermore, although opportunity was given by the Court to voice objections at the time of the

Fairness Hearing, no objections were stated by any member of the Class or representative of any

such Class Member.

3. The Court is satisfied from all of the memoranda of law, declarations, and exhibits

submitted to the Court, that the Stipulation of Settlement is, and the Court now finds, that the

Stipulation of Settlement is fair and finally approves it as such. The Stipulation of Settlement is

incorporated herein by this reference as if set out in full.

4. The “Settlement Class” includes: all of those persons who are members of the

following defined class and/or sub-classes who, during the class period from January 1,1998, to and

including October 1, 2004, were booked at Sacramento County Juvenile Hall, assigned to a Unit,

Case 2:04-cv-02381-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Page 3

EMILY ROBINSON, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-1617 FCD DAD

KIMBERLY KOZLOWSKI, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-2381 FCD DAD

 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

and strip searched at the facility:

a. All juveniles booked and assigned to a Unit at Sacramento County Juvenile

Hall and strip searched, including juveniles strip-searched in groups, during

the Class Period;

b. The sub-class of juveniles who, during the Class Period, were booked on

misdemeanor, infraction, ordinance violation, or other non-felony offenses

not involving violence, drugs or weapons, assigned to a Unit, and strip

searched during the period of their incarceration;

c. The sub-class of all juveniles who, during the Class Period, were booked at

Sacramento County Juvenile Hall on felony charges not involving violence,

drugs or weapons, assigned to a Unit, and strip searched during the period of

their incarceration. 

5. Persons who previously commenced civil litigation challenging the legality of any

strip search at the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall during the class period and have prevailed,

settled or had their complaints denied on their merits, and persons who have given timely notice of

their election to be excluded from the Settlement Class are not included in the Settlement Class.

6. With the exception of the individuals who submitted timely requests to the Court to

opt out of the Stipulation of Settlement, all claims and complaints of the named representative

Plaintiffs, together with all persons in the Settlement Class, are now dismissed with prejudice as to

all of the Released Persons defined to include all Defendants, their predecessors, successors, and/or

assigns, together with past, present and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys and/or

agents of the County of Sacramento or Sacramento County Probation Department. Claims and

complaints of such persons are now forever barred, and all Settlement Class Members are enjoined

from asserting against any released persons any and all claims which the Settlement Class Members

had, have, or may have in the future arising out of the facts alleged in the complaints.

7. Each Released Person is released from the claims which any Settlement Class

Member has had or may in the future have against any such Released Persons arising out of the facts

in the complaints. 

Case 2:04-cv-02381-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Page 4

EMILY ROBINSON, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-1617 FCD DAD

KIMBERLY KOZLOWSKI, et al. v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-2381 FCD DAD

 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

8. This Court explicitly finds that the Stipulation of Settlement, which is now made final

by this Judgment, was entered into in good faith, is reasonable, fair, and adequate, and is in the best

interest of the Class. The Court expressly approves payment to class counsel, the Law Office of

Mark E. Merin, the amount of One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00), for

attorney fees, and costs for the representation of Settlement Class Members herein, to be paid as

provided in the Stipulation of Settlement.

9. The Court further explicitly approves payment from the payment fund a total of Two

Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($280,000.00) to be divided among the representative Plaintiffs,

as specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court finds the amount is fair and adequate in

view of the damages suffered by the representative Plaintiffs and the efforts they expended in

litigating this case in the more than two and one-half years it has been pending.

10. Claims have been submitted and, in accordance with the claims processing procedure

specified in the Stipulation of Settlement, will be reviewed, valued, and paid by the Claims

Administrator from funds provided by the defendants as soon as practicable following the effective

date of this Judgment, meaning the date it is entered and becomes final. Such Judgment will be

deemed final only upon the expiration of the time to appeal or, if a notice of appeal is filed in this

matter, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writ of certiorari.

11. The Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties in this

action, including Defendants and all Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe

and enforce the Settlement in accordance with the terms for the mutual benefit of all of the parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaints in these

related actions be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be and the same hereby is entered

pursuant to the terms of this Order.

Dated: March 2, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-02381-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 4 of 4