Case: Local 10 ILWU v. City of Oakland

3:03-cv-02962 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: June 26, 2003

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On the morning of April 7, 2003, protesters gathered at the Port of Oakland for a peaceful demonstration against the Iraq war and against specific companies that profited from the war and did business at the Port. Demonstrators formed a picket line and encouraged workers and truck drivers to refuse to enter the facilities, but did not to obstruct their access. That morning, the officers of Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) met to decide whether its members shoul…

On the morning of April 7, 2003, protesters gathered at the Port of Oakland for a peaceful demonstration against the Iraq war and against specific companies that profited from the war and did business at the Port. Demonstrators formed a picket line and encouraged workers and truck drivers to refuse to enter the facilities, but did not to obstruct their access. That morning, the officers of Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) met to decide whether its members should report to work given the demonstration and the police presence. Several members of the Union were posted at the gates to the terminals of two of the companies against which the demonstration was held, with the purpose of letting Union members know that a decision was pending and that they should not enter until it was reached. Most or all of the Union members present waited outside of the gates in a group separate from the demonstrators. Also present were several legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild. At about 7:15 AM, the Oakland Police issued a dispersal order, alleged to be inaudible to most of the demonstrators and unclear in its directive. The demonstrators cleared away from the gates and allowed traffic to pass through more easily. The police formed lines blocking access to the route to the BART station by which most of the demonstrators arrived, and also to the parking lots where others had parked. At about 7:30, allegedly without any further warning or provocation, the Oakland police officers began barraging the demonstrators with a variety of "less-lethal weapons" including "sting ball" grenades filled with rubber pellets and tear gas, and wooden dowels and lead shot-filled bean bags fired from shotguns. The officers did not distinguish between the demonstrators, legal observers, and members of the Union, subjecting them all to this barrage. The demonstrators and others attempted to retreat along the only open routes, and the Police pursued, continuing to fire "less-lethal" weapons into the crowd and to strike at them with battons. Some demonstrators were intentionally struck by officers' motorcycles, in accordance with the Oakland Police Department's (OPD) standard practice for crowd dispersal at the time. The officers fired these weapons at demonstrators who arrived after any notice to disperse was given, and on bystanders. The police allegedly also purposely singled out and fired their weapons at legal observers, videographers and journalists, and individuals who appeared to be leaders because they carried bullhorns.

On June 26, 2003, two separate suits were filed against the City of Oakland, the OPD, and related defendants, in response to the OPD's actions on April 7. Both suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Because the cases involved substantially similar questions of fact and law and arose out of the same events, on August 11, 2003, the Court ordered that the cases be officially related and heard before the same judge. The cases were not consolidated under the same docket, but most or all of the substantive orders and opinions issued by the Court thereafter bore the docket numbers and captions of both cases and applied to both cases. The cases were also officially related to a third case, Allen v. City of Oakland, a landmark case filed in 2000 that had settled in March 2003 with the City agreeing to implement comprehensive reforms to its policing practices and to submit to monitoring by court-appointed experts (Allen has a separate entry in the Clearinghouse, see related cases below.)

One of the two cases addressed here, Local 10 ILWU v. City of Oakland, was filed as a class-action on behalf of all persons who attended the April 7 demonstration or who might attend future demonstrations in Oakland, and who were or would be subjected to the Defendants' alleged policy and practice of using excessive and arbitrary force to disperse or control demonstrations. In addition to the class plaintiffs, the suit also named as plaintiffs Local 10 ILWU and nine of its members, who were "standing by" in the vicinity of the demonstration but not active participants in it. All of the Union member plaintiffs had been hit by projectiles fired by the police.

The other suit, Coles v. City of Oakland, sought relief for several individual demonstrators who were allegedly injured by the OPD. These individuals were all demonstrators who allegedly had been shot by the police with less-lethal munitions, struck with motorcycles, and/or wrongfully arrested. One plaintiff was struck in the torso by a police baton, hit by a motorcycle, and shot in the face and neck with a lead-filled bean bag.

In both cases, Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' actions were prohibited the Constitutions of both the U.S and California. They alleged violations of their guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and association, their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, their rights to equal protection and due process, their right to be free from the use of excessive and arbitrary force, and their right to privacy. The case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows private actions to be brought against States for violations under color of state law of rights guaranteed by federal constitutional and statutory law. The Union also alleged that the Defendants had violated California privacy law by conducting investigations into its political affiliations and activities prior to the scheduled demonstration.

In both cases, Plaintiffs sought compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, as well as to recover legal costs. They also sought declaratory judgments holding the Defendants' actions to have been unlawful violations of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the U.S. and of California and of statutory law. They sought injunctions that among other things would prohibit the Defendants from unlawfully interfering with the constitutional and statutory rights of participants in public demonstrations and protests; from intentionally striking demonstrators with motorcycles; and from using "less-lethal" weapons as a method of crowd control against non-violent crowds or demonstrations. They sought an order compelling compliance with the already mandatory terms of the Settlement and Consent Decree reached in Allen v. City of Oakland.

On December 24, 2004, the parties entered a court-approved partial settlement addressing the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief to the extent that those claims related to the Defendants' crowd control policies. At the same time, class-action elements of the Local 10 ILWU case were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In the settlement, the Defendants denied any wrongdoing. The claims for damages and costs, and for other injunctive relief, remained to be litigated. The Court retained jurisdiction over the issues resolved by the settlement for purposes of enforcement. The City of Oakland and its Police Department adopted a new official Crowd Control/Crowd Management Policy in light of the settlement. The Crowd Control Policy restricted the City's power to declare an assembly unlawful only to those circumstances where demonstrators had already acted illegally or where they posed a clear and present danger of imminent violence. It forbade the OPD from dispersing demonstrations that had not been declared unlawful. It also required the OPD to provide an opportunity for demonstrators at assemblies declared unlawful to safely disperse prior to arrest, and required that repeated and sufficiently amplified announcements of the dispersal order, specifying available routes, be made. It also forbade the indiscriminate use of less-lethal munitions directly against crowds, even when specific individuals in the group were already violent. It prohibited the use of intentional motorcycle strikes and certain less-lethal weapons, such as wooden dowels and tasers, against crowds, and required that bean-bag munitions only be used against specifically targeted violent individuals or individuals who otherwise present an imminent risk to themselves or others. In 2011-12, the City of Oakland allegedly violated this policy repeatedly when it used less-lethal munitions against non-violent demonstrators at Occupy Oakland demonstrations and other protests. See related cases below (Campbell and Spalding).

On April 27, 2005, the Court (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims in both cases for the use of excessive force in instances where plaintiffs were not arrested. The Defendants did not seek to have dismissed the Fourth Amendment excessive force claims of those plaintiffs who had been arrested. The Judge held that whether the police actions intended to physically move the plaintiffs constituted seizures (and therefore would qualify for protection under the Amendment) was a question that would need to be resolved at trial. The order also denied the Defendants motion to dismiss the Union's First Amendment claims, because the Union alleged that the police had investigated the Union prior to the protest and knew that many of its leaders supported the demonstrators and their cause.

On September 27, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and legal costs, determining that the Plaintiffs were entitled to fees but declining to order the Defendants to pay the amount requested, totaling about $1,100,000, although not declaring this amount to be unreasonable. The order required the parties to negotiate further, and to return to the Court for a judicial determination of the amount to be paid only if the negotiations failed. Coles v. City of Oakland, 2005 WL 2373724 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

On December 6, 2005, Judge Henderson issued an order that granted in part and denied in part the parties' various motions for partial summary judgment or adjudication, resolving all outstanding questions of law and fact except the Fourth Amendment issue described above, which he held would need to be argued orally. He granted the Local 10 Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for summary judgment on their privacy claim, and the Defendants' unopposed motions to dismiss certain claims against some of the individual police officer defendants.

After this order, the Plaintiffs in the Local 10 ILWU case entered settlement negotiations with the Defendants, and on July 31, 2006 the action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in light of settlements reached between the parties. These settlement agreements have not been obtained by the Clearinghouse and their terms are unknown, but they did include attorneys' fees and costs. The Court retained jurisdiction over the case in order to enforce the earlier settlement that established the Crowd Control Policy.

The Plaintiffs in Coles also reached settlements with the Defendants. One plaintiff received $210,000 inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. Another received $8,000, inclusive of costs. Other plaintiffs settled for $30,000, $10,000, $31,250, and $48,000, exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. The amount received by the remaining plaintiff is unknown.

On January 4, 2007, Judge Henderson granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees in the Cole case. The Court ordered the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys $621,512.12. This included attorneys' fees and costs for the Coles portion of the earlier settlement for injunctive relief that lead to the Crowd Control Policy.

As of the time of this writing, July 2013, there has been no activity on either docket since this last order. The settlement establishing the Crowd Control Policy does not appear to have a termination date, and so it is possible that the case could be reopened.

Summary Authors

Alex Colbert-Taylor (7/12/2013)

Related Cases

Allen v. City of Oakland, Northern District of California (2000)

Spalding v. City Of Oakland, Northern District of California (2011)

Campbell v. City of Oakland, Northern District of California (2011)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5715472/parties/local-10-international-longshore-and-warehouse-un-v-city-of-oakland/


Judge(s)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burris, John L. (California)

Chanin, James B. (California)

Goodman, William Harry (New York)

Haddad, Michael J. (California)

Houk, Julie (California)

Lederman, Rachel (California)

Mass, Julia Harumi (California)

Neumann, Osha (California)

Pearl, Richard M (California)

Judge(s)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burris, John L. (California)

Chanin, James B. (California)

Goodman, William Harry (New York)

Haddad, Michael J. (California)

Houk, Julie (California)

Lederman, Rachel (California)

Mass, Julia Harumi (California)

Neumann, Osha (California)

Pearl, Richard M (California)

Remar, Robert Steven (California)

Schlosberg, Mark (California)

Schlosser, Alan Lawrence (California)

Sherwin, Julia (California)

Stein, Bobby Fay (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Fox, Gregory Mellon (California)

Hall, Randolph (California)

Helfrich, Arlene C (California)

Huneke, Nancy A. (California)

Russo, John A. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:03-cv-02962

Docket (PACER)

July 31, 2006

July 31, 2006

Docket

3:03-cv-02961

Docket

Coles v. City of Oakland

Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Docket

3:03-cv-02962

Statement of Local 10 ILWU

No Court

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Press Release

3:03-cv-02962

Statement of Alan Schlosser

No Court

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Press Release
1

3:03-cv-02962

Complaint

2005 WL 2613229

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Complaint
1

3:03-cv-02961

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Coles v. City of Oakland

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Complaint

3:03-cv-02962

Statement of Willow Rosenthal

No Court

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Press Release

3:03-cv-02962

Statement of Eric Shaw

No Court

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Press Release
8

3:03-cv-02962

Related Case Order

July 31, 2003

July 31, 2003

Order/Opinion
25

3:03-cv-02962

Third Amended Complaint

June 16, 2004

June 16, 2004

Complaint

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5715472/local-10-international-longshore-and-warehouse-un-v-city-of-oakland/

Last updated Aug. 13, 2022, 3:04 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Summons Issued

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

PACER

Case Referred to ECF

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

PACER
1

Complaint

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

PACER
2

Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines

1 Standing Order

View on PACER

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

PACER
3

Description not available

1 proof of service

View on PACER

July 8, 2003

July 8, 2003

PACER
4

Response ( Non Motion )

July 11, 2003

July 11, 2003

PACER
5

Clerk's Notice re: Failure to E-File and Register

July 14, 2003

July 14, 2003

PACER

Summons Issued

July 18, 2003

July 18, 2003

PACER
6

Amended Complaint

July 18, 2003

July 18, 2003

PACER
7

Summons Returned Unexecuted

July 18, 2003

July 18, 2003

PACER
8

Description not available

Aug. 11, 2003

Aug. 11, 2003

PACER
9

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Settlement

Aug. 18, 2003

Aug. 18, 2003

PACER
10

Letter

Jan. 8, 2004

Jan. 8, 2004

PACER
11

Joint Case Management Statement

Jan. 20, 2004

Jan. 20, 2004

PACER
12

Clerk's Notice re: Failure to E-File and Register

Jan. 21, 2004

Jan. 21, 2004

PACER
13

Case Management Conference - Initial

Jan. 26, 2004

Jan. 26, 2004

PACER
14

Stipulation

Jan. 27, 2004

Jan. 27, 2004

PACER
15

Stipulation and Order

Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

PACER
16

Amended Complaint

Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

PACER

Summons Issued

Jan. 29, 2004

Jan. 29, 2004

PACER
17

Joint Case Management Statement

April 26, 2004

April 26, 2004

PACER
18

Order

May 6, 2004

May 6, 2004

PACER
19

Order

May 6, 2004

May 6, 2004

PACER
20

Settlement Conference

July 21, 2004

July 21, 2004

PACER
21

Joint Case Management Statement

Aug. 11, 2004

Aug. 11, 2004

PACER
22

Stipulation

Sept. 9, 2004

Sept. 9, 2004

PACER
23

Notice (Other)

Sept. 15, 2004

Sept. 15, 2004

PACER
24

Stipulation

Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

PACER
25

Amended Complaint

Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

RECAP
26

Stipulation and Order

Sept. 17, 2004

Sept. 17, 2004

PACER
27

Case Management Scheduling Order

Oct. 26, 2004

Oct. 26, 2004

PACER
28

Stipulation

Nov. 8, 2004

Nov. 8, 2004

PACER
29

Stipulation and Order

Nov. 9, 2004

Nov. 9, 2004

PACER
30

Settlement Conference

Nov. 18, 2004

Nov. 18, 2004

PACER
31

Stipulation

Nov. 23, 2004

Nov. 23, 2004

PACER
32

Stipulation and Order

Nov. 23, 2004

Nov. 23, 2004

PACER
33

Stipulation

Dec. 20, 2004

Dec. 20, 2004

PACER
34

Stipulation and Order

Dec. 28, 2004

Dec. 28, 2004

PACER
35

Letter

Jan. 18, 2005

Jan. 18, 2005

PACER
36

Letter

Jan. 18, 2005

Jan. 18, 2005

PACER
37

Stipulation and Order

Jan. 24, 2005

Jan. 24, 2005

PACER
38

Motion to Dismiss

Jan. 28, 2005

Jan. 28, 2005

PACER
39

Affidavit in Opposition to Motion

Feb. 3, 2005

Feb. 3, 2005

PACER
40

Reply to Opposition

Feb. 18, 2005

Feb. 18, 2005

PACER
41

Notice (Other)

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

PACER
42

Notice (Other)

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

PACER
43

Notice (Other)

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

PACER
44

Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment

1 Exhibit (RULE 68) DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND OFFER T

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

PACER
45

Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment

1 Exhibit (RULE 68) DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND OFFER T

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

PACER
46

Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment

1 Exhibit DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND OFFER TO COMPROM

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

PACER
47

Notice (Other)

Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

PACER
48

Notice (Other)

Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

PACER
49

Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment

1 Exhibit DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND OFFER TO COMPROMI

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

PACER
50

Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment

1 Exhibit DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND OFFER TO COMPROMI

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

PACER
51

Motion Hearing

March 7, 2005

March 7, 2005

PACER
52

Notice (Other)

March 31, 2005

March 31, 2005

PACER
53

Notice (Other)

March 31, 2005

March 31, 2005

PACER
54

Notice (Other)

April 1, 2005

April 1, 2005

PACER
55

Notice (Other)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

April 1, 2005

April 1, 2005

PACER
56

Notice (Other)

April 5, 2005

April 5, 2005

PACER
57

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 38 Motion to Dismiss. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2005)

April 27, 2005

April 27, 2005

RECAP
58

Notice (Other)

May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

PACER
59

Stipulation

May 16, 2005

May 16, 2005

PACER
60

Clerk's Notice

May 23, 2005

May 23, 2005

PACER
61

Stipulation and Order

May 23, 2005

May 23, 2005

PACER
62

Stipulation

May 26, 2005

May 26, 2005

PACER
63

Notice (Other)

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
64

Memorandum in Support

1 Exhibit EXHIBIT A

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
65

Motion for Attorney Fees

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
66

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 1: James B. Chanin Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit 1A: Stipulation and Order for Partial Settlement of Injunctive R

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit 1B: Photographs of Willow Rosenthal's Injuries

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit 1C: Article Regarding United Nations Commission

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Exhibit 1D: Haw Document Regarding "Party at the Port" and Con

View on PACER

6 Exhibit Exhibit 1E: Richard Word Deposition Excerpt

View on PACER

7 Exhibit Exhibit 1F: James B. Chanin's Itemization of Hours Cited

View on PACER

8 Exhibit Exhibit G: James B. Chanin Costs Summary

View on PACER

9 Exhibit Exhibit H: May 25, 2005 Boston Herald News Article

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
67

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

RECAP
68

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 3A: Schlosser's Resume

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit 3B: Alan Schlosser's and ACLU's Itemization of Hours C

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
69

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
70

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 5A: John L. Burris' Itemization of Hours Claimed

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
71

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 6A: Bobbie Stein's Itemization of Hours Claimed

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
72

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 7A: Osha Neumann's Resume

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit 7B: Osha Neumann's Itemization of Hours Claimed

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
73

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 8A: Rachel Lederman's Itemization of Hours Claimed

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit 8B: Rachel Lederman's Resume

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
74

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 9A: Julie Houk's Itemization of Hours Claimed

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
75

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 10A: Robert Remar's Itemization of Hours Claimed

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
76

Exhibits

1 Exhibit Exhibit 11A: Michael Bien's Resume

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
77

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
78

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
79

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
80

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
81

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
82

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
83

Exhibits

1 Exhibit EXHIBIT 18A: 2004 National Law Journal Billing Survey

View on PACER

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
84

Exhibits

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
85

Proposed Order

May 27, 2005

May 27, 2005

PACER
86

Stipulation and Order

May 31, 2005

May 31, 2005

PACER
87

Stipulation

June 2, 2005

June 2, 2005

PACER
88

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time for defendant City of Oakland to file its answer until 06/06/05. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/3/05. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2005)

June 3, 2005

June 3, 2005

RECAP
89

Notice (Other)

June 3, 2005

June 3, 2005

PACER
90

Stipulation

June 9, 2005

June 9, 2005

PACER
91

Stipulation of Dismissal

June 9, 2005

June 9, 2005

PACER
92

STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing the hearing date on plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/9/05. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2005)

June 9, 2005

June 9, 2005

RECAP
93

Stipulation

June 10, 2005

June 10, 2005

PACER
94

Stipulation

June 10, 2005

June 10, 2005

PACER
95

Stipulation

June 10, 2005

June 10, 2005

PACER
96

Stipulation

June 10, 2005

June 10, 2005

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 26, 2003

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individuals who were present at a peaceful, nonviolent anti-war protest at the Port of Oakland on April 7, 2003.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

ACLU of Northern California

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

City of Oakland (Oakland), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Private Settlement Agreement

Voluntary Dismissal

Amount Defendant Pays: More than $1,000,000

Order Duration: 2004 - None

Issues

General:

Aggressive behavior

Excessive force

Failure to supervise

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures

Over/Unlawful Detention

Personal injury