Case: Ruelas v. County of Alameda

4:19-cv-07637 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Nov. 20, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This lawsuit concerns individuals incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, CA, who were allegedly forced to provide uncompensated labor for Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. When this suit was filed, Santa Rita Jail held individuals awaiting trial, individuals convicted of a crime awaiting sentencing, individuals in immigration detention, and individuals convicted of crimes serving county jail or state prison sentences. At the time of the lawsuit’s filing, Aramark Correctional Servi…

This lawsuit concerns individuals incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, CA, who were allegedly forced to provide uncompensated labor for Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. When this suit was filed, Santa Rita Jail held individuals awaiting trial, individuals convicted of a crime awaiting sentencing, individuals in immigration detention, and individuals convicted of crimes serving county jail or state prison sentences. At the time of the lawsuit’s filing, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC was a private, for-profit company that sold food prepared by incarcerated individuals to third parties outside Alameda County.

On November 20, 2019, eight individuals—pre-trial detainees, detainees facing deportation, and convicted individuals serving sentences in Santa Rita Jail—filed a putative class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the County of Alameda; its sheriff; Aramark Correctional Services, LLC; and ten unnamed defendants. Represented by a private law firm, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to District Judge John S. Tigar.

The plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a class of “all individuals incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who perform or performed services for Aramark Correctional Services, LLC in their jail kitchen facility any time during the period that began four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action until the final disposition of this action.” The plaintiffs additionally sued on behalf of three subclasses. Three plaintiffs sued on behalf of the “Pretrial Detainee Subclass,” consisting of pretrial detainees who perform or performed services for Aramark. Three plaintiffs sued on behalf of the “Women Prisoner Subclass,” comprising all incarcerated women who perform or performed services for Aramark. One plaintiff sued on behalf of the “Immigration Detainee Subclass,” consisting of all incarcerated detainees awaiting immigration proceedings who perform or performed services for Aramark.

According to the complaint, Alameda County contracted with Aramark as early as July 1, 2015. The plaintiffs alleged that the contract allowed Aramark to employ individuals incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail without compensation. The plaintiffs prepared and packaged food in Santa Rita Jail’s industrial kitchen and sanitized the kitchen at the conclusion of the day’s food preparation. The plaintiffs claimed that Alameda County threatened to extend sentences, impose solitary confinement, and terminate employment if the plaintiffs refused to work without pay. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that Alameda County typically assigned incarcerated men to work eight-hour, daytime shifts while incarcerated women were assigned to work four-hour, nighttime shifts. As a result, the women were deprived of equal opportunities to leave their cells and earn money. According to the complaint, when men incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail staged a worker strike to advocate for improved jail conditions in October 2019, Alameda County forced incarcerated women to work all shifts by threatening to withhold meals.

The plaintiffs brought ten claims in their original complaint. First, the putative pretrial detainee subclass, the immigration detainee subclass, and four plaintiffs claimed Alameda County and its sheriff violated the Thirteenth Amendment by coercing them to work without compensation. In their second claim, they alleged both County defendants and Aramark violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protections Act (18 U.S.C. § 1589) by forcing them to work without pay. The putative women prisoners subclass and three plaintiffs claimed the County defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by assigning women shorter shifts at night and that all defendants violated the California Labor Code for failure to pay equal wages in violation of the California Equal Pay Act. Next, all plaintiffs and the putative class alleged the County defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide the plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard before denying their wages. They also claimed both the County defendants and Aramark violated the California Labor Code for failure to pay wages under Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 218; failure to pay minimum wage under Labor Code Section 1194; and failure to pay overtime premium wages under Labor Code Section 1194. The plaintiffs brought one claim exclusively against Aramark for violating California’s Unfair Competition Law. Finally, they claimed all defendants violated California’s Bane Act, which prohibits the use of threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with the exercise of state or federal constitutional rights.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the defendants’ acts and practices violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class and subclasses. They sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ex Parte Young that would require the defendants to cease and desist from their acts and practices. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought general, special, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for financial and emotional injuries, such as emotional distress and the loss of wages and overtime premiums. The plaintiffs estimated that the injury and loss of money to the plaintiffs and the putative class and subclasses exceeded one million dollars and could be as much as several million dollars. The plaintiffs also sued for their costs and attorneys’ fees.

On December 13, 2019, Alameda County and its sheriff moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.  On January 17, 2020, Aramark separately moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.  On June 26, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part both motions. For the federal claims, the court granted Aramark’s motion to dismiss the Trafficking Victims Protections Act claim against it with leave to amend, finding that the inference that Aramark witnessed the County defendants’ coercive tactics was too speculative based on the alleged facts. However, the court denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ federal claims because the plaintiffs were not required to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies.

For the state claims, the court granted the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Labor Code and Bane Act claims against it as to one named plaintiff, with leave to amend, because the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that he suffered an injury within one year of filing the class claim pursuant to the California Government Code. The court also granted the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Code and Bane Act claims against it as to two named plaintiffs for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. Additionally, the court granted Aramark’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Equal Pay Act claim with leave to amend because the plaintiffs conceded that they did not allege unequal pay.

The court also denied in part and granted in part Labor Code claims against the defendants based on whether the plaintiffs were convicted or non-convicted individuals. For convicted individuals, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all Labor Code claims against all defendants without leave to amend. The court concluded that convicted incarcerated individuals were not covered by the California Labor Code. They therefore could not invoke Labor Code claims to recover wages.

For non-convicted individuals, the court denied both defendants’ motions to dismiss the Labor Code claim for failure to pay wages. The court also denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Code claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime. However, the court granted Aramark’s motion to dismiss the claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime because the plaintiffs failed to allege that they were employees of Aramark.

For the Unfair Competition Law claim, the court denied Aramark’s motion to dismiss this claim because the plaintiffs stated a Labor Code claim against Aramark for failure to pay non-convicted plaintiffs’ wages. Lastly, the court denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim but granted Aramark’s motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim because the plaintiffs only alleged coercion by the County defendants and not Aramark.

On July 10, 2020, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. One individual was added as a named plaintiff in the amended complaint. Five of the original eight plaintiffs were added as representatives of the pretrial detainee subclass. The plaintiffs also reasserted all of their original claims, except for the Equal Pay Act claim, which they did not assert as to convicted individuals.

On August 14, 2020, both Alameda County and Aramark moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part both motions on February 9, 2021. 519 F.Supp.3d 636 (amended and superseded by 2021 WL 12144269).

The court denied both defendants’ motions to dismiss the Trafficking Victims Protections Act claim because the plaintiffs did have standing to sue Aramark, both defendants could be held liable as primary offenders under the Act, and Aramark could be held liable as a venture offender under the Act.

The court granted Aramark’s motion in dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Code Section 201 and 202 claim for failure to pay wages with leave to amend because plaintiffs did not plead sufficient facts that some form of termination or resignation occurred. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that California Proposition 139 entitled them with a right to compensation because Proposition 139 did not mandate County defendants to enact a local ordinance before entering a joint employment venture with for-profit entities and because it did not state that a contract can function as an ordinance in the absence of a local ordinance governing county jail programs. The court also granted the County defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Section 1194 claim for failure to pay overtime wages without leave to amend because the County defendants were exempt from state overtime laws.

The court denied Aramark’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 1194 claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime because the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show that Aramark exercised some control over their working conditions. The court disagreed with the defendants’ assertion that the California Penal Code foreclosed the plaintiffs’ Labor Code claims. The court also denied Aramark’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ UCL claim because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a Trafficking Victims Protections Act claim and Labor Code claims against Aramark and because any local, state, or federal law can serve as the predicate for an action under a UCL claim. Additionally, the court denied Aramark’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim because the plaintiffs alleged that Aramark intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ right to minimum and overtime wages under California Labor Code Section 1194 and because the plaintiffs were reasonably intimidated by Aramark’s threats to report the plaintiffs for discipline by the sheriff’s deputies if they refused to work.

The court denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 1194 claim for failure to pay minimum wage because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that they were employed by the County defendants. The court also denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Thirteenth Amendment claim because the plaintiffs’ allegation was sufficient to plead that the County defendants violated their Thirteenth Amendment rights and that the County defendants were acting under color of state law as administrators of Santa Rita jail. The court denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative women prisoner subclass’s equal protection claim because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the County defendants’ practices deprived them of equal time outside their cells on the basis of gender. The court also denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ due process claim because the plaintiffs sufficiently stated that the County defendants denied their due process rights by withholding pay without an opportunity to be heard.

The court denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss individual claims of three named plaintiffs whose state law claims were previously dismissed in the court order from June 26, 2020. The court held that the dismissal of their state law claims had no effect on their federal claims. The court also denied the County defendants’ motion to dismiss individual claims as to one named plaintiff because the named plaintiff’s claims were properly pleaded. 

The defendants moved for leave to appeal the court’s decision. On June 24, 2021, the court granted leave to appeal, certified for interlocutory appeal the issue of whether the California Labor Code covered non-convicted individuals, and issued an amended order providing additional reasoning. The court maintained that California Proposition 139 did not confer upon the plaintiffs a right to compensation. However, the court added that it did not interpret Proposition 139 to preclude application of the Labor Code to the plaintiffs in all circumstances, disagreeing with the defendants’ argument that Proposition 139 authorized the local government to force the plaintiffs to work for Aramark without wages. The court also added reasoning as to why it disagreed with the defendants’ assertion that the California Penal Code foreclosed the plaintiffs’ Labor Code claims. It noted that its conclusion was supported by the fact that the plaintiffs worked for the benefit of Aramark and not for the county jail. The court stated that the Penal Code could not be interpreted to deny non-convicted detainees protections of the Labor Code because the Penal Code did not give guidance regarding the wages owed to non-convicted detainees working for a private company. It concluded that the non-convicted detainees working for a private company to supply goods to third parties outside of Alameda County were entitled to the protections of the Labor Code in the absence of regulation from the Penal Code or any relevant local ordinance.

On September 16, 2021, the defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the district court’s decision that the California Labor Code covered non-convicted incarcerated individuals. 

The district court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on June 10, 2022 for discovery purposes. On July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class and a subclass. The class consisted of “all pretrial detainees who work or who have worked for Aramark in the Santa Rita Jail Kitchen during the period November 20, 2015 and the present, without compensation.” The “Equal Protection Subclass” consisted of “all women who worked for Aramark in the Santa Rita Jail Kitchen during the period November 20, 2015 to the present, without compensation.”

On November 1, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order certifying to the California Supreme Court the question of whether non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities have a claim for minimum and overtime wages under Section 1194 in the absence of any local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages. The Ninth Circuit stated that certification to the California Supreme Court was warranted because there was no controlling precedent and because the California Supreme Court’s decision could determine how this case turned out. 51 F.4th 1187.

Two days later, as a result of that decision, the district court stayed the case except for a pending motion for sanctions.

On January 11, 2023, the California Supreme Court granted the Ninth Circuit's request and agreed to hear the case (Case No. S277120). Oral argument was heard on February 6, 2024. 

Back in the district court, on April 14, 2023, the district court granted sanctions against two plaintiffs for failing to appear at depositions. The order denied one plaintiff the ability to participate as a named class representative and dismissed the claims of another plaintiff with prejudice. The court did not award attorney’s fees to the defendants. 

As of March 30, 2024, the parties are still awaiting the California Supreme Court’s opinion and proceedings in the district court are currently stayed. 

Summary Authors

Bogyung Lim (3/8/2020)

Stephanie Kim (4/13/2023)

Venesa Haska (3/30/2024)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16491559/parties/ruelas-v-county-of-alameda/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Glaser, Joel Perry (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Bahna, Christie Paulette (California)

Bosset, Eric C. (District of Columbia)

Chaput, Isaac Daniel (California)

Hu, Winston K (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:19-cv-07637

Docket [PACER]

March 5, 2020

March 5, 2020

Docket
1

4:19-cv-07637

Complaint

Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

Complaint
46

4:19-cv-07637

Order on Motions to Dismiss

June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Order/Opinion
48

4:19-cv-07637

First Amended Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

Complaint
88

4:19-cv-07637

Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motions to Dismiss

June 24, 2021

June 24, 2021

Order/Opinion
145

No. 21-16528

Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of California

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

Order/Opinion

51 F.4th 51

150

4:19-cv-07637

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Granting Motion for Sanctions

Ruelas v. Alameda County

April 14, 2023

April 14, 2023

Order/Opinion

2023 WL 2023

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16491559/ruelas-v-county-of-alameda/

Last updated March 30, 2024, 6:30 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants with jury demand ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-13908518.). Filed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/20/2019) Modified on 11/22/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2019)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

Clearinghouse
2

Proposed Summons. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/20/2019) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

PACER
3

Proposed Summons. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/20/2019) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

PACER
4

Case assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (mbcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2019) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

Nov. 21, 2019

Nov. 21, 2019

PACER

~Util - Case Assigned by Intake

Nov. 21, 2019

Nov. 21, 2019

PACER

Electronic filing error. Incorrect Revision of Civil Cover Sheet used. Current Revision is JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 7/19) [err101]. Please e-file an Amended Civil Cover Sheet only. Event is located at: Other Filings > Other Documents > Civil Cover Sheet Re:[1-1] Civil Cover Sheet, filed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, Armida Ruelas, BERT DAVIS, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019)

Nov. 22, 2019

Nov. 22, 2019

PACER
5

Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Case Management Statement due by 2/18/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/25/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording

View on PACER

Nov. 22, 2019

Nov. 22, 2019

PACER
6

Summons Issued as to ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Gregory J. Ahern, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

1 Summons

View on PACER

Nov. 22, 2019

Nov. 22, 2019

PACER
7

Civil Cover Sheet by DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas Amended Civil Cover Sheet. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

Nov. 22, 2019

Nov. 22, 2019

PACER
8

SUMMONS Returned Executed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC served on 11/26/2019, answer due 12/17/2019. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

Dec. 5, 2019

Dec. 5, 2019

PACER
9

SUMMONS Returned Executed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA served on 11/25/2019, answer due 12/16/2019. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

Dec. 5, 2019

Dec. 5, 2019

PACER
10

SUMMONS Returned Executed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. Gregory J. Ahern served on 11/25/2019, answer due 12/16/2019. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

Dec. 5, 2019

Dec. 5, 2019

PACER
11

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND ARAMARK'S DEADLINE TO ANSWER PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, Deandre Euggene Cox; Bert Davis; Katrish Jones; Joseph Mebrahtu; Dahryl Reynolds; Monica Mason and Luis Nunezromero. (Bahna, Christie) (Filed on 12/11/2019) Modified on 12/11/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2019)

Dec. 11, 2019

Dec. 11, 2019

PACER
12

NOTICE of Appearance by Jason S. Mills (Mills, Jason) (Filed on 12/11/2019) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

Dec. 11, 2019

Dec. 11, 2019

PACER
13

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/27/2019. Replies due by 1/3/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice)(Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 12/13/2019) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

1 Request for Judicial Notice

View on PACER

Dec. 13, 2019

Dec. 13, 2019

PACER
14

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ) filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 12/27/2019) (Entered: 12/27/2019)

Dec. 27, 2019

Dec. 27, 2019

RECAP
15

Request for Judicial Notice re 14 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial NoticeAdministrative Motion, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 14 ) (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 12/27/2019) (Entered: 12/27/2019)

1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial NoticeAdminist

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

Dec. 27, 2019

Dec. 27, 2019

PACER
16

REPLY (re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ) filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff. (Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 1/3/2020) Modified on 1/6/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2020)

Jan. 3, 2020

Jan. 3, 2020

RECAP
17

NOTICE of Appearance by Cortlin Hall Lannin (Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

Jan. 6, 2020

Jan. 6, 2020

RECAP
18

MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Eric Bosset ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-14041761.) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

Jan. 6, 2020

Jan. 6, 2020

RECAP
19

MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Thomas Plotkin ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-14041844.) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Plotkin, Thomas) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

Jan. 6, 2020

Jan. 6, 2020

RECAP
20

NOTICE of Appearance by Isaac Daniel Chaput (Chaput, Isaac) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

Jan. 6, 2020

Jan. 6, 2020

RECAP
21

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 18 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2020) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

RECAP
22

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 19 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2020) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

RECAP
23

MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 1/31/2020. Replies due by 2/7/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

PACER
24

Request for Judicial Notice re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin In Support of Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit A to Lannin Declaration)(Related document(s) 23 ) (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin In Support of Request for Judicial Notice

View on PACER

2 Exhibit A to Lannin Declaration

View on PACER

Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

PACER
25

Rule 7.1 Disclosures by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Aramark for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

RECAP
26

Certificate of Interested Entities by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Aramark for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

RECAP
27

CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearings. The motion hearings previously set for 2/5/20 and 2/26/20 have been continued. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Related documents(s) 13, 23 )(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2020) (Entered: 01/24/2020)

Jan. 24, 2020

Jan. 24, 2020

PACER

~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings

Jan. 24, 2020

Jan. 24, 2020

PACER

Clerk's Notice Continuing Motion Hearing

Jan. 24, 2020

Jan. 24, 2020

PACER
28

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) ) filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 1/31/2020) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

RECAP
29

Request for Judicial Notice re 28 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 28 ) (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 1/31/2020) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial Notice

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

PACER
30

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue February 25, 2020 CMC to April 28, 2020 filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, County of Alameda, Gregory J. Ahern, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrathu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, and Luis Nunez-Romero. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 2/5/2020) Modified on 2/5/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin

View on PACER

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

PACER

ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance after 5/1/2018

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

PACER
31

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY JASON S. MILLS by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC (Mills, Jason) (Filed on 2/5/2020) Modified on 2/5/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2020)

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

PACER
32

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY CHRISTIE P. BAHNA by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC (Mills, Jason) (Filed on 2/5/2020) Modified on 2/5/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2020)

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

PACER
33

ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel shall comply promptly with the requirements of ADR L.R. 3-5(b) and shall file the ADR Certification. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2020) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

PACER
34

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 30 Stipulation to Continue February 25, 2020 CMC to April 28, 2020. Case Management Statement due by 4/21/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/28/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2020) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

Feb. 6, 2020

Feb. 6, 2020

PACER
35

REPLY (re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) ) filed byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 2/7/2020) (Entered: 02/07/2020)

Feb. 7, 2020

Feb. 7, 2020

RECAP
36

ORDER VACATING HEARING re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 26, 2020. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2020) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

Feb. 26, 2020

Feb. 26, 2020

RECAP
37

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 3/4/2020 re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Argument heard from both parties. Motion taken under submission. Written order to issue.Total Time in Court: 48 minutes. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. Plaintiff Attorney: EmilyRose Johns. Defendant Attorney: Eric Bosset, Cortlin Lannin, Isaac Chaput. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/4/2020) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

March 4, 2020

March 4, 2020

PACER
38

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on March 4, 2020 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 3/5/2020) (Entered: 03/05/2020)

March 5, 2020

March 5, 2020

PACER

Motion Hearing

March 5, 2020

March 5, 2020

PACER
39

Transcript of Proceedings held on March 4, 2020, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, telephone number 925-899-2812, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 38 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/15/2020. (Related documents(s) 38 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 3/16/2020) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

March 16, 2020

March 16, 2020

PACER
40

CLERK'S NOTICE REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Pursuant to General Order 72, the case management conference currently scheduled for April 28, 2020, will proceed telephonically. No party need submit a request for telephonic appearance. Not later than 24 hours before the conference, the parties are ordered to email the courtroom deputy a conference call number at jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov. All counsel and/or parties representing themselves must be on the line at 2:00 p.m., ready to proceed when called. The Court usually schedules more than one case management conference at the same time, and thanks the parties and counsel in advance for their patience. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2020) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

March 17, 2020

March 17, 2020

PACER

Clerk's Notice

March 17, 2020

March 17, 2020

PACER
41

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue April 28, 2020 Initial CMC to July 21, 2020 filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, County of Alameda and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 3/31/2020) Modified on 4/1/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin

View on RECAP

March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

RECAP
42

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 41 Stipulation.The parties' stipulation continuing the April 28, 2020 case management conference and attendant deadlines is GRANTED. Case Management Statement due by 7/14/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/21/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2020) (Entered: 03/31/2020)

March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

PACER

Order on Stipulation

April 1, 2020

April 1, 2020

PACER
43

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on March 4, 2020 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 4/20/2020) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

PACER
44

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue July 21, 2020 Initial CMC to August 25, 2020 filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, County of Alameda and Gregory J. Ahern. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 6/23/2020) Modified on 6/24/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin

View on PACER

June 23, 2020

June 23, 2020

PACER
45

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 44 Stipulation to Continue July 21, 2020 Initial CMC to August 25, 2020. Case Management Statement due by 8/18/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/25/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2020) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

June 25, 2020

June 25, 2020

PACER
46

ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Dismiss. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2020) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Clearinghouse
47

NOTICE of Filing of First Amended Complaint by DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas, Scott Abbey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - First Amended Complaint)(Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 7/10/2020) Modified on 7/13/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

1 Exhibit A - First Amended Complaint

View on PACER

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
48

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byDAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, Armida Ruelas, Scott Abbey, KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 7/10/2020) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

Clearinghouse
49

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Set Deadlines for Briefing on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss The First Amended Complaint and to Continue Initial Case Management Conference filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, Scott Abbey, defendants County of Alameda and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 7/20/2020) Modified on 7/21/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin

View on PACER

July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

PACER
50

ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar Granting 49 STIPULATION TO SET DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 11/17/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2020 02:00 PM.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2020) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

July 23, 2020

July 23, 2020

PACER

Reset Hearing: Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2020 02:00 PM. See Docket No. 50 (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2020)

July 23, 2020

July 23, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings

July 23, 2020

July 23, 2020

PACER
51

Second MOTION to Dismiss Fist Amended Complaint filed by Gregory J. Ahern, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 9/18/2020. Replies due by 10/2/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration and Request for Judicial Notice)(Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 8/14/2020) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

1 Declaration and Request for Judicial Notice

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
52

MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 9/18/2020. Replies due by 10/2/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 8/14/2020) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
53

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 51 Second MOTION to Dismiss Fist Amended Complaint ) filed byScott Abbey, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 9/18/2020) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

Sept. 18, 2020

Sept. 18, 2020

PACER
54

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 52 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) filed byScott Abbey, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 9/18/2020) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

Sept. 18, 2020

Sept. 18, 2020

RECAP
55

Request for Judicial Notice filed byScott Abbey, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 9/18/2020) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial Notice

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

Sept. 18, 2020

Sept. 18, 2020

PACER
56

REPLY (re 51 Second MOTION to Dismiss Fist Amended Complaint ) to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss FAC filed byCOUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 10/2/2020) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

Oct. 2, 2020

Oct. 2, 2020

PACER
57

REPLY (re 52 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) filed byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 10/2/2020) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

Oct. 2, 2020

Oct. 2, 2020

PACER
58

CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2020 02:00 PM in Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be ident ified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at JSTCRD@cand.uscourts.gov no later than October 20, 2020 by 2:00 p.m.General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2020 02:00 PM in Vi deoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2020) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

Oct. 15, 2020

Oct. 15, 2020

PACER

Clerk's Notice Setting Zoom Hearing

Oct. 15, 2020

Oct. 15, 2020

PACER
59

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 10/21/2020 re 51 Second MOTION to Dismiss Fist Amended Complaint filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Gregory J. Ahern, 52 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Hearing held via Zoom videoconference. Argument heard from parties. Motions taken under submission. Total Time in Court: 1 hour 30 minutes. Court Reporter: Pamela Hebel. Plaintiff Attorney: EmilyRose Johns, Dan Siegel. Defendant Attorney: Counsel for Defendant Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC: Eric Bosset, Cortlin Lannin, Isaac Chaput. Interpreter: Counsel for Defendants County of Alameda and Sheriff Ahern: Joel Glaser. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/21/2020) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

Oct. 21, 2020

Oct. 21, 2020

PACER

Motion Hearing

Oct. 21, 2020

Oct. 21, 2020

PACER
60

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on October 21, 2020 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, for Court Reporter Pam Batalo. (Chaput, Isaac) (Filed on 10/23/2020) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

Oct. 23, 2020

Oct. 23, 2020

PACER
61

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Initial Case Management Conference filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, Scott Abbey, County of Alameda and Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 10/30/2020) Modified on 11/2/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin

View on PACER

Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

PACER
62

ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 61 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER -- to Continue Initial Case Management Conference filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Motions terminated: 61 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER -- to Continue Initial Case Management Conference filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Case Management Statement due by 1/5/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/12/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor.. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 2, 2020. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2020) Modified on 11/2/2020 (mllS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2020)

Nov. 2, 2020

Nov. 2, 2020

PACER
63

Transcript of Proceedings held on October 21, 2020 before Judge Tigar. Court Reporter Pamela Batalo Hebel, telephone number 626-688-7509; pamela_batalo-hebel@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 60 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 12/2/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/14/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/9/2021. (Related documents(s) 60 ) (Batalo, Pam) (Filed on 11/11/2020) Modified on 10/15/2021: Add hearing date to docket entry. (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/11/2020)

Nov. 11, 2020

Nov. 11, 2020

PACER
64

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Initial Case Management Conference filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, Scott Abbey, County of Alameda and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 12/2/2020) Modified on 12/3/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2020)

1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin

View on PACER

Dec. 2, 2020

Dec. 2, 2020

PACER
65

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 64 Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 3/2/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/9/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2020) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

Dec. 3, 2020

Dec. 3, 2020

PACER
66

ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion to Dismiss. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2021) (Entered: 02/09/2021)

Feb. 9, 2021

Feb. 9, 2021

PACER
67

ORDER If Plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint, ECF No. 66 at 20, 25 n.7, they shall do so by March 3, 2021. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 9, 2021. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2021) (Entered: 02/09/2021)

Feb. 9, 2021

Feb. 9, 2021

PACER

Order

Feb. 10, 2021

Feb. 10, 2021

PACER
68

STIPULATION Extending Deadline for Defendants to Answer First Amended Complaint filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, Scott Abbey, County of Alameda and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. (Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 2/19/2021) Modified on 2/22/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/2021)

Feb. 19, 2021

Feb. 19, 2021

PACER
69

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Scott Abbey, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, County of Alameda and Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 3/2/2021) Modified on 3/3/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2021)

March 2, 2021

March 2, 2021

PACER
70

MOTION for Leave to Appeal filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 3/18/2021. Replies due by 3/25/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin, # 2 Exhibit A to Lannin Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Lannin Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 3/4/2021) (Entered: 03/04/2021)

March 4, 2021

March 4, 2021

PACER
71

CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/9/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or vid eoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/9/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no do cument associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)

March 9, 2021

March 9, 2021

PACER
72

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/9/2021. Hearing held via Zoom videoconference. Written scheduling order to issue.Total Time in Court: 23 minutes. Court Reporter: Not Reported. Plaintiff Attorney: EmilyRose Johns and Dan Siegel. Defendant Attorney: Counsel for Aramark Correctional Services, LLC: Cortlin Lannin, Isaac Chaput ; Counsel for For Alameda County and Sheriff Ahern: Joel Glaser. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)

March 9, 2021

March 9, 2021

PACER
73

SCHEDULING ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 7/9/2021. Case Management Statement due by 6/9/2021. Close of Expert Discovery due by 6/17/2022. Designation of Experts due by 4/22/2022. Motions due by 7/1/2022. Rebuttal Reports due by 5/20/2022. Responses due by 7/29/2022. Replies due by 8/19/2022. Telephone Conference set for 6/11/2021 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 9, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)

March 9, 2021

March 9, 2021

PACER

Clerk's Notice Setting Zoom Hearing

March 9, 2021

March 9, 2021

PACER

Case Management Conference - Initial

March 10, 2021

March 10, 2021

PACER
74

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 70 MOTION for Leave to Appeal ) filed byScott Abbey, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 3/18/2021) (Entered: 03/18/2021)

March 18, 2021

March 18, 2021

PACER
75

MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Winston K Hu (Hu, Winston) (Filed on 3/22/2021) Modified on 3/23/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2021)

March 22, 2021

March 22, 2021

PACER
76

STIPULATION to Extend Defendants' Time to Answer Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by Gregory J. Ahern, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, Luis Nunez-Romero, Scott Abbey and Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. (Hu, Winston) (Filed on 3/22/2021) Modified on 3/23/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2021)

March 22, 2021

March 22, 2021

PACER

Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101] The correct event is Motion to Substitute Attorney. The correct event can be found at Civil Events > Motions and Relate d Filings > Motions - General > Substitute Attorney. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 75 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Gregory J. Ahern (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2021)

March 22, 2021

March 22, 2021

PACER

Electronic Filing Error

March 23, 2021

March 23, 2021

PACER
77

REPLY (re 70 MOTION for Leave to Appeal ) filed byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 3/25/2021) (Entered: 03/25/2021)

March 25, 2021

March 25, 2021

PACER
78

ORDER VACATING HEARING re 70 MOTION for Leave to Appeal filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 29, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2021) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

March 29, 2021

March 29, 2021

PACER
79

*****PLEASE DISREGARD. ENTERED IN ERROR. SEE CORRECTED DOCUMENT AT ECF. 80***** Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 75 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2021) Modified on 3/29/2021 (mllS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/2021)

March 29, 2021

March 29, 2021

PACER
80

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 75 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 29, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2021) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

March 29, 2021

March 29, 2021

PACER
81

Defendants County of Alameda and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern's ANSWER to Amended Complaint byGregory J. Ahern, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Hu, Winston) (Filed on 4/22/2021) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

April 22, 2021

April 22, 2021

PACER
82

ANSWER to Amended Complaint byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 4/22/2021) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

April 22, 2021

April 22, 2021

PACER
83

CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Telephone Conference set for 6/11/2021 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at JSTCRD@cand.uscourts.gov no later than June 10, 2021 by Noon.General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. Telephone Conference set for 6/11/2021 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021) (Entered: 06/03/2021)

June 3, 2021

June 3, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 20, 2019

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All individuals incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who perform or performed services for Aramark Correctional Services, LLC in their jail kitchen facility any time during the period that began four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action until the final disposition of this action.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

County of Alameda (Alameda), County

Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1589

Constitutional Clause(s):

Slavery/Involuntary servitude

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary procedures

Forced labor

Recreation / Exercise

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Disciplinary segregation

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Work release or work assignments