This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, a special anti-graft court in the Philippines. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson and others questioned whether new provisions in Republic Act No. 8249, which expanded the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction to include cases where any accused (not just principal accused) meet certain ranks or positions, could be applied retroactively to their pending cases related to a 1995 incident. The Supreme Court document outlines the legal arguments on both sides and the background of the related bills passed by Congress and signed into law on the issue.
Complaint Election Contest Statement - CUT v. WMFPDJoshuaSharf
This document is a complaint filed in district court contesting the results of a special district election held by the West Metro Fire Protection District on May 6, 2014. The complaint alleges that the election violated voters' constitutional right to a secret ballot. Specifically, it claims that election officials could observe how identified individuals voted, compromising the integrity and secrecy of the election. The complaint seeks to void the election results and requests the court take jurisdiction over the case. It names the fire district, the designated election official, and winning candidates as defendants.
This complaint alleges that the Mayor of Union City, Brian Stack, violated the civil rights of Charles Everett, the Chief of Police for Union City. The complaint alleges that after Chief Everett complained about Mayor Stack improperly interfering with police operations for political purposes, Mayor Stack retaliated by filing baseless complaints against Chief Everett and disparaging his reputation in an attempt to force his resignation. The complaint brings two claims - a Section 1983 claim against Mayor Stack for violating Chief Everett's First Amendment rights, and a municipal liability claim against the City of Union City for Mayor Stack's actions as a policymaker for the city and police department. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
Employee class action v Google, Apple, Intel and othersDennis Howlett
Google, Apple, Intel and others are in the dock in a case where plaintiffs argue the operation of an illegal cartel designed to restrict pay to skilled workers.
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
All People's Congress v NASMOS, Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, 26 October 1999Tony Kinnear
This case concerns the interpretation of Section 133 of the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution, which abolished the requirement for a "petition of right" process to commence legal proceedings against the government. Specifically, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Section 133(1) was inoperative until Section 133(2) was enacted by Parliament.
The Supreme Court held that Section 133(1) abolished the petition of right process upon the Constitution coming into force. Section 133(1) and (2) could be read literally and there was no ambiguity or link between the two subsections. Therefore, the plaintiff was not required to follow the petition of right process and could commence proceedings directly against the government. However, the existing procedural law under
Sycamore Vista Homeowner's Association Responds666isMONEY, Lc
it's not actually the HOA's attorney responding but two (yes, two) lawyers from Russo's office. I have yet to write about who Steve Russo is but will say this now: They have no web page! rss-law.com How do they stay in business?
This document is a Notice of Removal filed by attorneys for New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. (NECC) to remove a personal injury lawsuit against NECC from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The attorneys argue that the court has jurisdiction due to NECC's bankruptcy proceedings and an order establishing a multidistrict litigation regarding NECC cases. They further argue the case should be transferred to the multidistrict litigation in Massachusetts, where the bankruptcy is taking place.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, a special anti-graft court in the Philippines. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson and others questioned whether new provisions in Republic Act No. 8249, which expanded the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction to include cases where any accused (not just principal accused) meet certain ranks or positions, could be applied retroactively to their pending cases related to a 1995 incident. The Supreme Court document outlines the legal arguments on both sides and the background of the related bills passed by Congress and signed into law on the issue.
Complaint Election Contest Statement - CUT v. WMFPDJoshuaSharf
This document is a complaint filed in district court contesting the results of a special district election held by the West Metro Fire Protection District on May 6, 2014. The complaint alleges that the election violated voters' constitutional right to a secret ballot. Specifically, it claims that election officials could observe how identified individuals voted, compromising the integrity and secrecy of the election. The complaint seeks to void the election results and requests the court take jurisdiction over the case. It names the fire district, the designated election official, and winning candidates as defendants.
This complaint alleges that the Mayor of Union City, Brian Stack, violated the civil rights of Charles Everett, the Chief of Police for Union City. The complaint alleges that after Chief Everett complained about Mayor Stack improperly interfering with police operations for political purposes, Mayor Stack retaliated by filing baseless complaints against Chief Everett and disparaging his reputation in an attempt to force his resignation. The complaint brings two claims - a Section 1983 claim against Mayor Stack for violating Chief Everett's First Amendment rights, and a municipal liability claim against the City of Union City for Mayor Stack's actions as a policymaker for the city and police department. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
Employee class action v Google, Apple, Intel and othersDennis Howlett
Google, Apple, Intel and others are in the dock in a case where plaintiffs argue the operation of an illegal cartel designed to restrict pay to skilled workers.
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
All People's Congress v NASMOS, Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, 26 October 1999Tony Kinnear
This case concerns the interpretation of Section 133 of the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution, which abolished the requirement for a "petition of right" process to commence legal proceedings against the government. Specifically, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Section 133(1) was inoperative until Section 133(2) was enacted by Parliament.
The Supreme Court held that Section 133(1) abolished the petition of right process upon the Constitution coming into force. Section 133(1) and (2) could be read literally and there was no ambiguity or link between the two subsections. Therefore, the plaintiff was not required to follow the petition of right process and could commence proceedings directly against the government. However, the existing procedural law under
Sycamore Vista Homeowner's Association Responds666isMONEY, Lc
it's not actually the HOA's attorney responding but two (yes, two) lawyers from Russo's office. I have yet to write about who Steve Russo is but will say this now: They have no web page! rss-law.com How do they stay in business?
This document is a Notice of Removal filed by attorneys for New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. (NECC) to remove a personal injury lawsuit against NECC from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The attorneys argue that the court has jurisdiction due to NECC's bankruptcy proceedings and an order establishing a multidistrict litigation regarding NECC cases. They further argue the case should be transferred to the multidistrict litigation in Massachusetts, where the bankruptcy is taking place.
Fall 2010 open memo assignment no doubt v. activision right of publicity cali...Lyn Goering
This document is a court order granting the plaintiff's application to remand a case back to state court from federal court. The plaintiff had filed a complaint against the defendant in state court for claims related to the use of the plaintiff's likeness in a video game. The defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing the claims were preempted by federal copyright law. The court analyzed the relevant legal standards for removal and copyright preemption. Applying a two-part test, the court determined the plaintiff's claims were not preempted as they involved misappropriation of the plaintiff's name and likeness beyond what was agreed to, rather than contesting the defendant's copyright. The court therefore granted the application to remand the case back to
Error in survey number, extent or catagory of land in the document is nota problem. James Joseph Adhikarathil Your Land Matter Consultant. 9447464502
A golden thread runs through all the decisions referred to
above. A piece of land may be described in the document or decree
correctly or wrongly. Description may be given by reference to
village, locality, survey number, lekhom number, extent,
S.A.No.290/1999 17
measurements or boundaries. At times, descriptions may tally
pointing unerringly to a particular plot of land in which case there
will be no difficulty in locating the plot. Sometimes the various
descriptions given in a document or decree may be in conflict with
each other. In such a case, the court is called upon to adjudicate
on the identity of the exact plot intended to be dealt with in the
document or decree. No doubt, the court will at first try to
reconcile the various descriptions. If that be not possible, one or
more of the descriptions may have to be rejected and the other
decision rested only on the other description or descriptions. When
one of the descriptions is vague and uncertain and another
description is definite and certain, the latter may be preferred. If
none of the descriptions is vague or uncertain, that description
which is more certain and stable and least likely to have been
mistaken or inserted inadvertently must be preferred if it
sufficiently identified the subject matter of the transaction and the
other descriptions must be rejected as erroneous or inaccurate.
This is not a rule of law and therefore is not inflexible in character ;
it is a mere rule of construction which appears to be safe and
almost an infallable guide."
My Lawyers Respond to the HOA's Motion to Dismiss666isMONEY, Lc
This document is a response by Sycamore Vista Land For Sale, LC to a motion to dismiss filed by Sycamore Vista No. 5 Homeowner's Association. It argues that the motion to dismiss should be denied for three reasons: 1) Sycamore Vista's complaint included numerous factual references to the homeowner's association and properly pled the essential elements of its claims; 2) the motion to dismiss standard requires accepting all allegations as true, which Sycamore Vista's 20-page complaint satisfies; and 3) motions to dismiss are disfavored and should only be granted if no facts could entitle the complainant to relief.
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the SEC on March 18, 2003 regarding the offer and sale of $200 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.625% Senior Notes due 2008. The filing included an underwriting agreement for the notes offering, an opinion on the legality of the notes from the company's counsel, and a supplemental indenture governing the terms of the notes. The company represented that the registration statement for the notes complied with applicable regulations and did not contain any untrue statements of material fact. Proceeds from the notes offering would be used for general corporate purposes.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
This document summarizes a proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to amend their regulations defining "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The current regulatory definition was found invalid by federal courts for being inconsistent with the Act. The proposed rule would replace the invalidated definition with one consistent with the Act and court opinions that critical habitat is intended to promote both the survival and recovery of listed species. Public comments will be accepted on the proposed rule and two other related documents until July 11, 2014.
Clear Channel Communications filed an 8-K form with the SEC on May 2, 2003 regarding the sale of $500 million in senior notes. The filing included an underwriting agreement for the sale of the notes, an opinion on the transaction from the company's law firm, and a supplemental indenture between the company and trustee regarding the terms of the notes. The company's Chief Accounting Officer signed the filing.
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendants’ reply brief i...Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response brief to their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The local court rules do not permit a response to a reply brief without court approval, which was not obtained.
2) Even if permitted, the plaintiff's response brief exceeds the 20-page limit for response briefs and the 10-page limit for reply briefs.
3) The defendants argue the plaintiff's response brief should be stricken from the record.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Daniel Sparaco, a plaintiff seeking ballot access as an unaffiliated candidate for Baltimore City Council. It summarizes that Maryland used to have a July 1 deadline for unaffiliated candidates to file declarations of intent to seek ballot access, but in 2015 changed it to February 3, the same deadline as major party candidates. It argues this new deadline is unconstitutional under Supreme Court and 4th Circuit precedent and asks the court to enjoin its enforcement and accept declarations by the previous July 1 deadline.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
NT Properties filed a reply to the counterclaim of Sycamore Vista Land For Sale. NT Properties admits some allegations but denies most for lack of knowledge. NT Properties argues that some allegations are just legal arguments and should be disregarded. NT Properties denies that the counterclaim states a valid cause of action and alleges it is barred by estoppel and unjust enrichment. NT Properties argues the counterclaim violates pleading requirements and denies any allegations not expressly admitted. NT Properties requests that the counterclaim be dismissed and that it be awarded attorney fees.
The document discusses strategies and procedures for removing a case from state to federal court, including:
- Cases that can be removed include those involving diversity of citizenship, federal questions, and certain civil rights cases.
- Defendants must file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving the state court filing and establish federal jurisdiction.
- The notice of removal can be amended within 30 days to correct deficiencies but not assert new grounds for removal.
- Cases arising from state workers' compensation laws cannot be removed to federal court.
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As DefendantJRachelle
This order grants the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new parties and factual allegations learned during discovery. The plaintiff seeks to add three individuals ("Doe defendants") identified during depositions as being involved in removing property from the estate. The plaintiff also seeks to add an attorney and her law firm who received estate property from one of the defendants. The only opposition comes from the attorney and law firm, but the court finds that allowing the amendments would not be prejudicial or futile. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.
Bruce Cameron Peters has over 25 years of experience in commercial litigation and dispute resolution. He has worked in private practice at several law firms and has also held roles as a government lawyer. His experience spans a wide range of legal areas including commercial litigation, administrative law, intellectual property, employment law, insolvency, and property law. He is admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Queensland, High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.
This document is the Federal Defendants' Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Federal Defendants deny many of the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and provide responses to each paragraph corresponding to the Complaint. The Federal Defendants also assert that matters not specifically admitted in their Answer are hereby denied.
1) The US District Court for Northern California granted final approval of a class action settlement between plaintiffs and the City of Oakland.
2) Under the settlement, the City of Oakland will pay $1.025 million to class members, representatives, and counsel.
3) The court approved changes to Oakland police policies regarding citations, record sealing, and crowd control procedures.
Scott McMillan La Mesa Faces Sanctions for Lying to CourtDarren Chaker
The defendant objects to the plaintiffs' claim that this case is related to a previous criminal case. The defendant argues that the cases do not meet the criteria to be considered related under the local civil rules as they do not involve the same parties, claims, property, or events. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to properly file a notice of related cases as required by the rules. The defendant requests that the court deny the plaintiffs' claim of related cases and considers sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel for failing to follow the proper procedures.
Darren Chaker was sued for First Amendment conduct under federal RICO laws. The attorney who sued him, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney desired to have the lawsuit heard before a more favorable judge so falsely claimed the lawsuit 'related to' a criminal action, when in truth it did not. Darren Chaker's attorneys sought sanctions for making the false statement and Scott McMillan did not oppose it.
This document is a motion filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys requesting permission from the court to file a fourth amended complaint. Specifically, the motion requests: (1) changing the class definition; (2) removing Michele Reinhart as a plaintiff and adding George and Susie Pfau; and (3) adding claims against additional defendants including Central Asia Institute and MC Consulting for alleged RICO violations. The motion also details why the plaintiffs' counsel believes the additional claims and parties are necessary.
This document is the Federal Defendants' Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Federal Defendants deny many of the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and provide responses to each numbered paragraph corresponding to the Complaint. The Federal Defendants also assert that matters not specifically admitted in their Answer are denied.
This order rules on the defendants' request for judicial notice in a case about the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court grants the request to take judicial notice of exhibits A, B, and C, which are the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision, as they are incorporated into the complaint by reference. The court also grants the request to take judicial notice of the existence of other exhibits consisting of public records, but does not take judicial notice of the defendants' descriptions of those exhibits.
Fall 2010 open memo assignment no doubt v. activision right of publicity cali...Lyn Goering
This document is a court order granting the plaintiff's application to remand a case back to state court from federal court. The plaintiff had filed a complaint against the defendant in state court for claims related to the use of the plaintiff's likeness in a video game. The defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing the claims were preempted by federal copyright law. The court analyzed the relevant legal standards for removal and copyright preemption. Applying a two-part test, the court determined the plaintiff's claims were not preempted as they involved misappropriation of the plaintiff's name and likeness beyond what was agreed to, rather than contesting the defendant's copyright. The court therefore granted the application to remand the case back to
Error in survey number, extent or catagory of land in the document is nota problem. James Joseph Adhikarathil Your Land Matter Consultant. 9447464502
A golden thread runs through all the decisions referred to
above. A piece of land may be described in the document or decree
correctly or wrongly. Description may be given by reference to
village, locality, survey number, lekhom number, extent,
S.A.No.290/1999 17
measurements or boundaries. At times, descriptions may tally
pointing unerringly to a particular plot of land in which case there
will be no difficulty in locating the plot. Sometimes the various
descriptions given in a document or decree may be in conflict with
each other. In such a case, the court is called upon to adjudicate
on the identity of the exact plot intended to be dealt with in the
document or decree. No doubt, the court will at first try to
reconcile the various descriptions. If that be not possible, one or
more of the descriptions may have to be rejected and the other
decision rested only on the other description or descriptions. When
one of the descriptions is vague and uncertain and another
description is definite and certain, the latter may be preferred. If
none of the descriptions is vague or uncertain, that description
which is more certain and stable and least likely to have been
mistaken or inserted inadvertently must be preferred if it
sufficiently identified the subject matter of the transaction and the
other descriptions must be rejected as erroneous or inaccurate.
This is not a rule of law and therefore is not inflexible in character ;
it is a mere rule of construction which appears to be safe and
almost an infallable guide."
My Lawyers Respond to the HOA's Motion to Dismiss666isMONEY, Lc
This document is a response by Sycamore Vista Land For Sale, LC to a motion to dismiss filed by Sycamore Vista No. 5 Homeowner's Association. It argues that the motion to dismiss should be denied for three reasons: 1) Sycamore Vista's complaint included numerous factual references to the homeowner's association and properly pled the essential elements of its claims; 2) the motion to dismiss standard requires accepting all allegations as true, which Sycamore Vista's 20-page complaint satisfies; and 3) motions to dismiss are disfavored and should only be granted if no facts could entitle the complainant to relief.
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the SEC on March 18, 2003 regarding the offer and sale of $200 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.625% Senior Notes due 2008. The filing included an underwriting agreement for the notes offering, an opinion on the legality of the notes from the company's counsel, and a supplemental indenture governing the terms of the notes. The company represented that the registration statement for the notes complied with applicable regulations and did not contain any untrue statements of material fact. Proceeds from the notes offering would be used for general corporate purposes.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
This document summarizes a proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to amend their regulations defining "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The current regulatory definition was found invalid by federal courts for being inconsistent with the Act. The proposed rule would replace the invalidated definition with one consistent with the Act and court opinions that critical habitat is intended to promote both the survival and recovery of listed species. Public comments will be accepted on the proposed rule and two other related documents until July 11, 2014.
Clear Channel Communications filed an 8-K form with the SEC on May 2, 2003 regarding the sale of $500 million in senior notes. The filing included an underwriting agreement for the sale of the notes, an opinion on the transaction from the company's law firm, and a supplemental indenture between the company and trustee regarding the terms of the notes. The company's Chief Accounting Officer signed the filing.
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendants’ reply brief i...Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response brief to their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The local court rules do not permit a response to a reply brief without court approval, which was not obtained.
2) Even if permitted, the plaintiff's response brief exceeds the 20-page limit for response briefs and the 10-page limit for reply briefs.
3) The defendants argue the plaintiff's response brief should be stricken from the record.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Daniel Sparaco, a plaintiff seeking ballot access as an unaffiliated candidate for Baltimore City Council. It summarizes that Maryland used to have a July 1 deadline for unaffiliated candidates to file declarations of intent to seek ballot access, but in 2015 changed it to February 3, the same deadline as major party candidates. It argues this new deadline is unconstitutional under Supreme Court and 4th Circuit precedent and asks the court to enjoin its enforcement and accept declarations by the previous July 1 deadline.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
NT Properties filed a reply to the counterclaim of Sycamore Vista Land For Sale. NT Properties admits some allegations but denies most for lack of knowledge. NT Properties argues that some allegations are just legal arguments and should be disregarded. NT Properties denies that the counterclaim states a valid cause of action and alleges it is barred by estoppel and unjust enrichment. NT Properties argues the counterclaim violates pleading requirements and denies any allegations not expressly admitted. NT Properties requests that the counterclaim be dismissed and that it be awarded attorney fees.
The document discusses strategies and procedures for removing a case from state to federal court, including:
- Cases that can be removed include those involving diversity of citizenship, federal questions, and certain civil rights cases.
- Defendants must file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving the state court filing and establish federal jurisdiction.
- The notice of removal can be amended within 30 days to correct deficiencies but not assert new grounds for removal.
- Cases arising from state workers' compensation laws cannot be removed to federal court.
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As DefendantJRachelle
This order grants the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new parties and factual allegations learned during discovery. The plaintiff seeks to add three individuals ("Doe defendants") identified during depositions as being involved in removing property from the estate. The plaintiff also seeks to add an attorney and her law firm who received estate property from one of the defendants. The only opposition comes from the attorney and law firm, but the court finds that allowing the amendments would not be prejudicial or futile. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.
Bruce Cameron Peters has over 25 years of experience in commercial litigation and dispute resolution. He has worked in private practice at several law firms and has also held roles as a government lawyer. His experience spans a wide range of legal areas including commercial litigation, administrative law, intellectual property, employment law, insolvency, and property law. He is admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Queensland, High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.
This document is the Federal Defendants' Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Federal Defendants deny many of the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and provide responses to each paragraph corresponding to the Complaint. The Federal Defendants also assert that matters not specifically admitted in their Answer are hereby denied.
1) The US District Court for Northern California granted final approval of a class action settlement between plaintiffs and the City of Oakland.
2) Under the settlement, the City of Oakland will pay $1.025 million to class members, representatives, and counsel.
3) The court approved changes to Oakland police policies regarding citations, record sealing, and crowd control procedures.
Scott McMillan La Mesa Faces Sanctions for Lying to CourtDarren Chaker
The defendant objects to the plaintiffs' claim that this case is related to a previous criminal case. The defendant argues that the cases do not meet the criteria to be considered related under the local civil rules as they do not involve the same parties, claims, property, or events. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to properly file a notice of related cases as required by the rules. The defendant requests that the court deny the plaintiffs' claim of related cases and considers sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel for failing to follow the proper procedures.
Darren Chaker was sued for First Amendment conduct under federal RICO laws. The attorney who sued him, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney desired to have the lawsuit heard before a more favorable judge so falsely claimed the lawsuit 'related to' a criminal action, when in truth it did not. Darren Chaker's attorneys sought sanctions for making the false statement and Scott McMillan did not oppose it.
This document is a motion filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys requesting permission from the court to file a fourth amended complaint. Specifically, the motion requests: (1) changing the class definition; (2) removing Michele Reinhart as a plaintiff and adding George and Susie Pfau; and (3) adding claims against additional defendants including Central Asia Institute and MC Consulting for alleged RICO violations. The motion also details why the plaintiffs' counsel believes the additional claims and parties are necessary.
This document is the Federal Defendants' Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Federal Defendants deny many of the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and provide responses to each numbered paragraph corresponding to the Complaint. The Federal Defendants also assert that matters not specifically admitted in their Answer are denied.
This order rules on the defendants' request for judicial notice in a case about the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court grants the request to take judicial notice of exhibits A, B, and C, which are the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision, as they are incorporated into the complaint by reference. The court also grants the request to take judicial notice of the existence of other exhibits consisting of public records, but does not take judicial notice of the defendants' descriptions of those exhibits.
Lewis barbe was declared as an expert in safety and accident reconstLewis Barbe
Lewis Barbe is a specialist in safety engineering and failure analysis. This PDF tells about Lewis Barbe’s achievement for being declared as an expert in safety and accident reconstruction.
A motion by the City and County of Honolulu and the FTA to dismiss some plaintiffs and some claims from a federal environmental lawsuit was denied by a judge.
It is reasonably arguable that contact between the lay members of the Employment Tribunal and three of the five individual Respondents, themselves lay members, created an appearance of bias. Subject to that, grounds of appeal based on perversity, reasons, time-bar, falsity, good faith and agency were all dismissed. The case was sent for a full hearing on the issue of apparent bias created by the involvement of three Respondents as lay members on the Employment Tribunal. If apparent bias was found, the whole judgment would be set aside and a new hearing ordered in a different region.
Doc1014 attorney volker going for $1 m in feesmalp2009
Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, LLP ("LTPC") seeks approval of $1,000,000 in attorney fees and $2,958.01 in expenses for a total of $1,002,958.01. The fees represent LTPC's one-third contingency fee from the Trustee's $3,000,000 settlement with Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP f/k/a Olshan Grundman Frome Rozenzweig & Wolosky, LLP and David Adler. LTPC was employed as special litigation counsel and filed an adversary proceeding against Olshan, responding to motions to dismiss and ultimately reaching the settlement. The expenses are for transcripts, legal
Doc1014 attorney volker going for $1 m in feesmalp2009
Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, LLP ("LTPC") seeks approval of $1,000,000 in attorney fees and $2,958.01 in expenses for a total of $1,002,958.01. The fees represent LTPC's one-third contingency fee from the Trustee's $3,000,000 settlement with Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP f/k/a Olshan Grundman Frome Rozenzweig & Wolosky, LLP and David Adler. LTPC was employed as special litigation counsel and filed an adversary proceeding against Olshan, responding to motions to dismiss and ultimately reaching the settlement. The expenses are for transcripts, legal
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence that the plaintiff violated rules of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a federal correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons due to these violations.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
The official motion filed with the New York State Court of Appeals, NY's highest court, to hear the case of Norse Energy v Town of Dryden over the town's vote to ban all fracking and drilling throughout the township.
This document is an answer filed by the City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Yoshioke, Director of the City's Department of Transportation Services, in response to a complaint filed against them and other defendants. The answer provides background on the rail project and denies or admits various allegations in the complaint. It argues the complaint fails to state a valid claim and the city defendants fully complied with applicable laws and regulations in their environmental review and approval of the project.
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To DismissVogelDenise
This document is a motion to strike filed by plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome in the case of Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The motion seeks to strike responses filed by defendants in opposition to previous motions by Newsome. Newsome argues the defendants do not dispute her right to a jury trial under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 7th Amendment. Newsome also argues Judge Tom S. Lee must recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Newsome cites statutes requiring recusal when a judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
This document is a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of a civil rights lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii and Pamela Lichty against Dean H. Seki, Comptroller of the Department of Accounting and General Services for the State of Hawaii. It includes a settlement agreement requiring the defendant to pay attorneys fees and costs, cease enforcement of certain permit requirements for expressive activities on state property, revise relevant administrative rules and policies, and provide periodic updates on implementation to plaintiffs' counsel. The purpose is to ensure individuals can engage in expressive activities on state property with constitutional time, place and manner restrictions.
Similar to Settlement re crowd control police, 2004 (20)
This executive directive from the Mayor of Oakland outlines 7 tasks to prioritize the development of the city's Ceasefire strategy and related violence reduction programs. It directs the city administrator to have the police and human services departments: 1) maintain a Ceasefire management team, 2) detail the Ceasefire coordinator to the mayor's office, 3) develop a citywide outreach and support program, 4) expand outreach and case management capacity, 5) build analytic capacity at the police department, 6) develop plans to institutionalize and sustain Ceasefire, and 7) develop strategies to build community-police trust and address implicit bias.
The document is a training bulletin from the Oakland Police Department outlining their crowd control and management policy. The policy aims to (1) protect life, property, and vital facilities; (2) maintain public peace and order; and (3) uphold constitutional rights while relying on minimal use of force. It defines crowd management and crowd control techniques and outlines general principles like planning, deployment, policing crowds, and responses to planned and spontaneous crowd situations. The policy stresses communication, de-escalation, and protecting constitutional rights.
Dan Siegel answered questions about his positions on various ballot measures and plans if elected mayor of Oakland. For public safety, he wants to reorganize the police department to have 513 patrol officers assigned across the city. To improve morale and reduce attrition, he will provide clear leadership and ensure officers feel appreciated. He believes fully complying with a federal court order by June 2016 could end federal oversight of the police department. To address infrastructure issues, he will use recent budget surpluses for street repairs and raise additional funds. Overall, Oaklanders could expect changes in leadership, management, strategic planning and transparency under his administration.
Shereda Nosakhare supports several measures on the November ballot related to public safety, ethics, and redistricting. She agrees with increasing the police force to 900 officers within 4 years and making it the top priority. To improve OPD morale and reduce attrition, she believes the department needs support from city administration and council. While progress has been made under federal oversight, she will support the police chief and work to end court supervision. Nosakhare supports allocating funds from Measure BB to repair streets and wants to explore bonds to fix deteriorating infrastructure. Overall, she is committed to implementing recommendations from past public safety plans and believes metrics and accountability can improve city services over time.
Paul Lim answers questions on various city ballot measures and issues facing Oakland. For public safety, he supports Measure Z but wants funds directed to a youth recreation program involving schools, colleges, and police coaches. He agrees with increasing the police force but not solely with armed officers, instead advocating civilian support staff. He proposes overhauling Operation Ceasefire to integrate a job placement program and bring in former community members as staff. Overall, Lim advocates redirecting funds from wasteful spending to youth programs and other community-based solutions to improve Oakland.
This document contains a candidate questionnaire for a City Council position in Oakland, California. Kevin Blackburn answers 11 questions on various policy issues facing the city. He expresses support for increasing funding for public safety programs. He also supports expanding the police force and Operation Ceasefire program. Blackburn believes the city faces significant financial shortfalls and proposes supporting economic growth through industries, housing development, and performance-based budgeting to address these issues.
Jill Broadhurst supports several measures to improve public safety in Oakland, including not laying off police officers, expanding Operation Ceasefire, and increasing the size of the police force. She acknowledges Oakland faces major budget shortfalls and says council members must be honest about problems and work towards long-term solutions. Broadhurst also supports implementing recommendations from a 2012 public safety plan to improve policing strategies and community relations.
The candidate expresses support for several measures and policies aimed at improving public safety, governance, and infrastructure in Oakland. They agree that increasing funding for police and expanding programs like Operation Ceasefire and Measure Z are priorities. The candidate also supports adopting best practices from other cities to address budgeting, crime reduction, and street maintenance. However, they have reservations about some recommendations requiring additional funding sources or liability concerns to be addressed first. Overall, the candidate believes transparency, accountability, and data-driven approaches are needed to reverse challenges facing the city.
This document is a candidate questionnaire for City Council District 4. In it, candidate Annie Campbell Washington provides positions and plans on various issues. She supports 3 ballot measures, increasing police staffing and funding Operation Ceasefire. She agrees with most recommendations from a 2012 public safety plan. As councilmember, she pledges to end federal oversight of OPD, address street and budget issues, and learn from other cities to improve Oakland's policies.
The candidate supports expanding Operation Ceasefire to other high crime neighborhoods and increasing Oakland's police force to improve public safety. While some recommendations like increased community policing and measuring community-police relations have the candidate's support, others like investigative staffing in each district require a more comprehensive approach. The candidate believes economic growth is needed to address Oakland's budget issues and will use experience in municipal finance to pay down debt and fund services.
Andrew Park is running for City Council in District 2. In response to a candidate questionnaire, Park expresses support for several ballot measures and increasing the police force, while emphasizing community policing and development as long-term solutions to public safety. He agrees with recommendations to improve OPD from a past report but would defer to police command staff. Park believes Oakland faces a budget shortfall and advocates transparency, shared sacrifice, and collective bargaining to address it.
This document contains Nancy S. Sidebotham's responses to questions about various policy issues in Oakland. On public safety measures, she opposes Measure Z due to concerns about funding, and opposes Measure CC due to weak language. On police staffing, she believes OPD should have 900 officers by 2018 but that leadership and officer morale must also improve. She stresses the importance of strategic planning and using officers effectively rather than just focusing on numbers. Overall, she emphasizes the need for improved leadership, management, and fiscal responsibility from Oakland's government.
Dan Siegel responds to 13 questions from the group Make Oakland Better Now regarding his positions on issues facing Oakland such as public safety, budget shortfalls, leadership and transparency. For question 1, he supports all three options presented. For question 2, he outlines a plan to reorganize the police department and assess staffing levels. For question 3, he commits to providing clear leadership and ensuring officers feel supported and follow rules.
Peter Y. Liu provides unconventional and often nonsensical responses to questions about policies and plans if elected mayor of Oakland. He dismisses current measures, programs, and recommendations, insisting his "Community Empowered Safety Plan" is superior but provides no details. He advocates disbanding the police force and replacing it with armed civilian neighborhood watches. Liu also expresses a desire to arrest the federal judge overseeing the police department and claims some neighborhoods deserve better infrastructure based on wealth. Overall, Liu's answers lack substance and raise concerns about his ability to govern.
The candidate supports implementing several recommendations from the Strategic Policy Partners public safety plan, including expanding Operation Ceasefire, increasing sworn police personnel, expanding investigation capacity in each district, and moving restorative justice practices into the community. The candidate believes leadership, management, strategic planning, and transparency would change under their leadership, with a focus on efficiency, accountability, and engagement with citizens. The candidate recognizes challenges around funding police staffing levels and addressing budget shortfalls.
Patrick McCullough responded to a mayoral candidate questionnaire. For ballot measures, he opposed Measure Z due to failed compromises and Measure CC/DD due to bigger bureaucracies not solving problems. He plans to have around 900 police officers by 2018 by replacing Measure Z and using federal grants or his own funding proposals. To improve morale, he will represent a leader cops can trust with his law enforcement experience. He is prepared to oppose changing Monitor demands and end Court supervision by showing substantial NSA compliance. He plans to bypass expensive infrastructure projects and train residents to do work. He acknowledges budget shortfalls and will restructure services and do more as needed. He will independently review programs like Ceasefire before expanding them.
Nancy Sidebotham opposes measures Z and CC on the November ballot but has no real position on measure DD. She believes OPD should ideally have 1100 officers but should start with 900 officers by the end of 2018. She argues that improving officer morale is not just the responsibility of the mayor and that officers need support from citizens and to eliminate oversight. Sidebotham believes Judge Henderson must carefully weigh all information and that Oakland could exit federal oversight more quickly if elected officials allowed the judge to complete his task. She argues infrastructure problems are a public safety issue and that the city relies too heavily on one funding source.
The candidate questionnaire summarizes Libby Schaaf's positions on various mayoral candidate questions. On public safety issues, she supports measures to maintain funding and expand the police force. She believes Oakland can have 800 officers by 2018 through focused recruiting and budgeting priorities. She acknowledges issues like OPD attrition and wants to improve compensation and leadership stability. Overall, she is committed to completing court-mandated reforms and strengthening public safety.
The candidate supports expanding Operation Ceasefire to address additional criminal behaviors beyond violent crime. They believe Ceasefire should not rely on grant funding but should be a higher priority for the city and funded accordingly. The candidate proposes transferring and training existing city personnel to support Ceasefire case managers, and partnering with county probation to help manage the program long-term without an increase in city headcount. The ultimate viability of Ceasefire depends on attracting local jobs to provide opportunities for participants who want to change their lives.
The candidate supports several recommendations from a 2012-2013 public safety plan to improve policing in Oakland, including expanding community policing citywide, increasing sworn officers, and measuring community-police relations. The candidate believes a CitiStat program could help hold city departments accountable if implemented after improving IT infrastructure. The candidate supports creating a rainy day fund, annual resident polling on services, and preparing a comprehensive public safety plan.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Settlement re crowd control police, 2004
1. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page1 of 8
GREGORY M. FOX, STATE BAR NO. 070876
Bertrand, Fox & Elliot
2 The Waterfront Building - 2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
3 Telephone: (415) 353-0999
FAX (415) 353-0990
4 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND
and POLICE CHIEF RICHARD WORD
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(List of Additional Counsel Attached)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SRI LOUISE COLES, et al. ) File No. C03-2961 TEH (JL)
)
Plaintiffs )
) File No. No. C 03-2962 TEH (JL)
vs. )
) Hon. Thelton E. Henderson
CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal entity, et al. ) ~
Defendants i STIPULATION AND ~ ORDER
) APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF
LOCAL 10, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE) PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND WAREHOUSE UNION, et aI., ) RELIEF
)
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
CITY OF OAKLAND; et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
--------------------------)
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEf - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
2. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page2 of 8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL J. HADDAD, ESQ (State Bar No. 189114)
JULIA SHERWIN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 189268)
Haddad & ShelWin
505 Seventeenth Street
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 452-5500
FAX: (510) 452-5510
WILLIAM H. GOODMAN, WG 1241
Moore & Goodm~n, LLP
740 Broadwa
V5' Floor
NewYork,N 10003
Tel~hone: (212) 353-9587
FA (212) 254-0857
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sri Coles et al C03-2961
JAMES B. CHANIN, SBN 76043
JULIE M. HOUK, SBN 114968
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN
3050 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California 94705
Telephone: (510) 848-4752
FAX (510) 848-5819
JOHN L. BURRIS, SBN 69888
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone: (510) 839-5200
FAX (510) 839-3882
RACHEL LEDERMAN, SBN 130192
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD and
Law Offices ofRachel Lederman and Alexsis C. Beach
558 Capp Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telcphone:(415) 282-9300
FAX (415) 285-5066
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER, SBN 49957
JULIA HARUMI MASS SBN 189649
MARK SCHLOSBERG, SBN 209144
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
FAX (415) 255-8437
Counsel for Plaintiffs Local 10 Longshore and Wherehouse Union et at.
C03-2962 THE (JL)
2
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
3. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page3 of 8
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
John A. Russo Esq. State Bar No. 129729
City Attorney
Randolph W. Hall, Esq. State Bar No. 080142
ChiefAsst. City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 238-3601
FAX (50) 238-6500
Counsel for defendant CITY OF OAKLAND et al
3
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
4. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page4 of 8
1 STIPULATION
2 All parties to these partially consolidated cases, by and through their attorneys, hereby
3 stipulate and agree that they have resolved the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and/or injunctive
4 relief against Defendant City of Oakland, insofar as those claims relate to the policies for Crowd
5 Control by the Oakland Police Department. Police Chief Richard Word fonnally approved the OPO
6 Crowd Control/Crowd Management Policy on November 9, 2004 (hereafter referred to as OPO
7 Crowd Control Policy.) A copy ofthe agreed new OPD Crowd Control Policy is attached and
8 incorporated hereto as Exhibit A.
9 Defendants contend, throughout this paragraph, as follows: Following the April 7, 2003
10 incident Oakland City officials immediately began a legal and operational assessment ofthe OPO
11 Crowd Control Policy, including an analysis of use offorce in crowd control situations. The City
12 Attorney's recommendation in mid-April 2003 to OPD was to immediately take idcntified, specific
13 enumerated steps to assure that the Crowd Control Policy was in compliance with federal and state
14 laws. In furtherance ofthe City Attorney's recommendation and from a police "best practices
15 perspective" Police Chief Richard Word convened an internal review board to review applicable
16 OPO policies and make recommendations to the Chief. The Review Board met on May 22, 29 and
17 June 5, 2003. On December 11,2003 Chief Word publicly announced changes to applicable OPD
18 crowd control and use of force policies. These policy changes were later set forth in Special Order
19 No. 8135. ChiefWord further announced the drafting ofa new written OPO Crowd Control Policy
20 and that he would meet and confer with plaintiffs' legal representatives about said policy. Thereafter
21 the parties exchanged draft policies and began a meet and confer process resulting in a consensus on
22 a new OPO crowd control policy document.
23 This Policy was the result ofover ten months of difficult, comprehensive and non-collusive
24 negotiations between the parties. Numerous drafts and counter drafts were exchanged and discussed
25 before agreement was reached. Counsel for the plaintiffs met twice directly with OPO officers,
26 including ChiefWord, and had numerous meetings and discussions with defendants' attorneys. The
27 respective clients have been kept infonned by their attorneys of the substance of these negotiations,
28 ofthe resulting agreement on the OPO Crowd Control Policy, and have agreed to it as the basis for a
partial settlement ofthis case. 4
STIPULATlON AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
5. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page5 of 8
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Oakland Police Department also agrees as part of this Stipulation and Order that it will
provide training as set forth in the new OPD Crowd Control Policy at section XII (A-D). The parties
agree to meet and confer regarding the Department's proposed training program and its scheduling.
Any disagreements between the parties regarding the proposed training program and its scheduling
may be submitted to the Court for resolution.
Plaintiffs Sri Louise Coles et aI., lawsuit (No. C03-2961 TEH (JL), set forth their injunctive
relief claims relating to the OPD Crowd Control Policy in their Request for Relief at (d) i-vi; viii of
their Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Coles et al. also set forth such claims for such
injunctive relief in Request for Relief paragraph (e). Plaintiffs Local 10, International Longshore and
Warehouse Union et aI., lawsuit (No. C 02-2962 TEH (JL), set forth their injunctive and declaratory
relief claims in their Prayer for Relief at paragraphs 2 and 3 of their Third Amended Complaint. In
consideration of the agreement and consensus on the wording of the new OPD Crowd Control Policy
between the parties, the plaintiffs in each case (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") will dismiss with prejudice
their declaratory and injunctive relief claims related to this agreement as set forth above in their
respective requests for relief. The elass alleged in the Third Amended Complaint by plaintiffs Local
10 et al (paragraphs 20-27) was never certified by the Court, and thus these class allegations are
dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants City of Oakland et. aI, in both cases agree to this partial settlement without
admitting liability. Defendants' non-admission of liability does not affect Plaintiffs' claims for
attorneys fees and costs related to this partial settlement.
All parties reserve all claims and defenses relating to Plaintiffs' damages claims, including all
claims and defenses relating to municipal and supervisory liability pertaining to the April 7, 2003
incident which is more fully described in the respective lawsuits and incorporated herein as though
fully set forth. All parties also reserve all claims and defenses relating to Plaintiffs' claims for
attorneys' fees and costs in connection with this settlement of the claims for declaratory and
injunctive reliefregarding the OPD Crowd Control Policy in both lawsuits and with all other claims
more fully set forth in both lawsuits.
All parties further agree to continue to meet and confer concerning the full resolution of
5
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELlEF - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
6. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page6 of 8
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
Plaintiffs' remaining claims for injunctive relief and Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as the following: (1) any converting of this OPD Crowd Control Policy into a more concise
policy document with related training bulletins, each of which would also constitute Oakland Police
Department policy; (2) related training requirements and procedures to implement the training
requirements set forth in the new OPD Crowd Control Policy as set forth above; (3) any material
change to the terms of this policy, including any new incorporation of use of force technology and/or
other uses of force for crowd control before such changes are actually made into crowd control
policy; and (4) certain other policies and procedures of the Oakland Police Department related to this
OPD Crowd Control Policy or Plaintiffs' remaining claims for injunctive relief.
With respect to Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to this partial settlement,
the parties agree to the following procedure for resolution of such claims: (1) Plaintiffs' counsel will
provide Defendants with written demands for such claims; (2) after the submission of those written
demands, the parties will meet and confer for forty-five (45) days, commencing no earlier than
January 1,2005, to try to resolve such claims; (3) if the parties are unable to resolve such claims, then
at the expiration of that meet and confer period, Plaintiffs may file a motion for reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs with the Court.
The parties stipulate and request that this Court approve this partial settlement and that this
Court retain jurisdiction of this matter after these claims are dismissed to enforce the terms of this
settlement, to rcsolve any disputes that may arise between the parties concerning this settlement or
the matters sct forth in the preceding paragraphs, and if necessary, to resolve Plaintiffs' claims for
attorneys' fees and costs. The parties further stipulate and request that this Court retain jurisdiction
for three (3) years from the date of filing of this Stipulation and Order with the proviso that within
that threc year time period any party may move the court to extend the time for up to an additional 24
months if there is a material breach ofthc terms of this Stipulation.
Pursuant to this stipulated partial settlement, Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their clams for
declaratory and/or injunctive relief related to the OPD Crowd Control Policy to the extent those
claims have been settled as provided herein and subject to this Court's retention ofjurisdiction as
described herein.
6
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
7. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page7 of 8
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
Dated: December 20, 2004
Dated: December 20, 2004
Dated: December 20, 2004
Dated: December 20, 2004
Dated: December 20, 2004
Dated: December 20, 2004
Dated: December 20, 2004
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Attorney for Plaintiffs in Local 10, et al.
RACHEL LEDERMAN
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
Attorney for Plaintiffs in Local I0, et al.
JOHN L. BURRIS
Attorney for Plaintiffs in Local 10, et al.
JAMES B. CHANIN
Attorney for Plaintiffs in Local I0, et al.
MICHAEL J. HADDAD
Attorney for Plaintiffs in Sri Louise Coles, et al.
GREGORY M. FOX
Attorney for Defendants City ofOakland et al.
JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney
RANDOLPH W. HALL, ChiefAss!. City Attorney
CHARLES VOSE, Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants City of Oakland, et al.
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Case Nos. C-03-1962 and 2961 TEH (JL)
8. Case3:03-cv-02962-TEH Document34 Filed12/28/04 Page8 of 8
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
ORDER
THIS COURT, having carefully monitored the parties' progress in this matter, having been
informed of the substance of the parties' partial settlement agreement including the new OPD Crowd
Control Policy which is attached and incorporated herein, and based on the stipulation of the parties,
THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT the parties' partial settlement of Plaintiffs' claims
for injunctive reliefas described in the parties' stipulation and as set forth in the attached proposed
policy is APPROVED.
THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief pertaining
to the Oakland Police Department's written Crowd Control Policy shall be dismissed pursuant to the
parties' partial settlement and stipUlation, subject to this Court's retention ofjurisdiction as described
herein.
THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter
after these claims are dismissed for a three year period commencing with the date of filing of this
Order to enforce the terms of this settlement, to resolve any disputes that may arise between the
parties concerning this settlement or the related matters on which the parties agree to meet and confer
as set forth in the parties' stipulation, and if necessary, to resolve Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees
and costs. Within that three year time period any party may move the Court to extend this time
period up to an additional 24 months in the event of a material breach of the terms ofthe Stipulation.
BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED.
If/PiAT.
~z -==---
8
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Case Nos. C-03-2962 and 2961 TEH UL)