Case: Ruiz v. City of Sacramento

2:20-cv-01229 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: June 18, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This class action lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2020 in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of California. The suit came after police in Sacramento, California allegedly used illegal tactics in an effort to disrupt protests that occurred after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, were several Sacramento residents who were injured during the protests; the defendants were the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department (SPD…

This class action lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2020 in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of California. The suit came after police in Sacramento, California allegedly used illegal tactics in an effort to disrupt protests that occurred after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, were several Sacramento residents who were injured during the protests; the defendants were the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department (SPD), one named officer, and 125 Does (public employees and agents). The lawsuit had eleven different claims, including violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution under § 1983, violations of the California state constitution, and violations of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Bane Act. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants from engaging in the behavior allegedly in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution, as well as compensatory, punitive, and special damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 14, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. They added numerous plaintiffs and also added a section explaining how each plaintiff exhausted their administrative remedies by submitting government claims to the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Police Departments. The plaintiffs also added tort claims under state law, alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The factual allegations and sought after relief largely stayed the same.

The case is ongoing as of January 2, 2021.

Summary Authors

Jack Hibbard (7/20/2020)

Emily Kempa (1/2/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18456432/parties/ruiz-v-city-of-sacramento/


Judge(s)

Brennan, Edmund F. (California)

Shubb, William B. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Masuhara, Paul Hajime (California)

Merin, Mark E. (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Trimm, Chance (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:20-cv-01229

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 10, 2020

Sept. 10, 2020

Docket
1

2:20-cv-01229

Class Action Complaint for Violation of Civil and Constitutional Rights

Phansopha v. City of Sacromento

June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

Complaint
4

2:20-cv-01229

First Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Civil and Constitutional Rights

Garza v. City of Sacramento

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18456432/ruiz-v-city-of-sacramento/

Last updated April 2, 2025, 8:39 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-8948199) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Merin, Mark) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

RECAP
2

SUMMONS ISSUED as to *City of Sacramento, Daniel Hahn, Sacramento Police Department* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Mark E. Merin* *Law Office of Mark E. Merin* *1010 F Street, Suite 300* *Sacramento, CA 95814*. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

PACER
3

CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 10/13/2020 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 VDRP) (Benson, A.) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

1 Consent Form

View on PACER

2 VDRP

View on PACER

June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

PACER
4

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against City of Sacramento, Daniel Hahn, Sacramento Police Department by Daniel Garza, Joshua Ruiz, Elisabeth Crouchley, Steven Passal, John Ruffner, Jennifer Loret de Mola, Russell Vreeland, Anthony Pires.(Merin, Mark) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

RECAP
5

SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: City of Sacramento served on 8/14/2020, answer due 9/4/2020. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

Aug. 21, 2020

Aug. 21, 2020

PACER
6

ANSWER with Jury Demand by City of Sacramento. Attorney Trimm, Chance Louis added.(Trimm, Chance) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

PACER
7

AMENDED 6 ANSWER with Jury Demand by City of Sacramento.(Trimm, Chance) Modified on 9/11/2020 (Tupolo, A). (Entered: 09/10/2020)

Sept. 10, 2020

Sept. 10, 2020

PACER
8

JOINT STATUS REPORT by Elisabeth Crouchley, Daniel Garza, Jennifer Loret de Mola, Steven Passal, Anthony Pires, John Ruffner, Joshua Ruiz, Russell Vreeland. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

Sept. 22, 2020

Sept. 22, 2020

PACER
9

ORDER by Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: The Court having considered the equitable division and efficient and economical determination of court business, hereby reassigns this case from Magistrate Judge *Edmund F. Brennan* to *Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson* for all further proceedings. As of October 1, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson is reassigned to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

PACER
10

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/7/20 ORDERING that Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled for 10/13/20 is VACATED. Discovery due by 3/28/2022. Dispositive Motions filed by 5/23/2022. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/1/2022 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Jury Trial set for 9/27/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

RECAP
12

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/2/22. (Kastilahn, A)

May 3, 2022

May 3, 2022

RECAP
13

Certify Class

1 Memorandum

View on RECAP

2 Declaration of Mark E. Merin

View on PACER

3 Declaration of Paul H. Masuhara

View on PACER

4 Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 9, 2022

May 9, 2022

PACER
15

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/24/22 ORDERING that HEARING as to 13 Motion for Class Certification RESET for 7/11/2022 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Defendants' Opposition shall be filed and served no later than June 13, 2022. Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed and served no later than June 27, 2022. All other pre-trial and trial dates remain in effect. (Kaminski, H)

May 25, 2022

May 25, 2022

RECAP
16

Opposition to Motion

June 13, 2022

June 13, 2022

PACER
17

Reply to Response to Motion

June 27, 2022

June 27, 2022

PACER

~Util - Motions Submitted/Under Advisement AND Motion Hearing

July 11, 2022

July 11, 2022

PACER
19

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/14/2022 DENYING 13 Motion to Certify Class. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

July 14, 2022

July 14, 2022

RECAP
22

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 07/19/22 REFERRING case to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for settlement conferences to be held 10/17/2022 at 09:00 AM and 10/18/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magi strate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The Final Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to 2/13/2023 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb and the Jury Trial is CONTINUED to 4/18/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb (cc: KJN). (Benson, A.)

July 19, 2022

July 19, 2022

RECAP
23

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/21/2022: Pursuant to the Court's Order setting Settlement Conference on 10/17/2022 at 9:00 AM and 10/18/2022 at 9:30 AM before Judge Newman (ECF No. 22 ), the parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present for the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual with full settlement authority to settle must also have unfettered discretion and authority to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement conference statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall be simultaneously delivered to the Court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. These statements should not be filed on the case docket. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). The Settlement Conference will take place by remote means (Zoom). The parties will receive instructions closer to the hearing date on how to appear for the Settlement Conference. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 07/21/2022)

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER

Minute Order

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER
24

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for New Settlement Conference Dates by City of Sacramento, Daniel Hahn, Sacramento Police Department. (Trimm, Chance) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
25

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/9/2022 GRANTING the parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order (ECF No. 24 ). The Settlement Conference is RESET for 12/19/2022 at 9:00 AM and 12/20/2022 at 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Newman. The parties are reminded to have a principal with full settlement authority present for the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual with full settlement authority to settle must also have unfettered discretion and authority to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement conference statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall be simultaneously delivered to the Court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. These statements should not be filed on the case docket. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). The Settlement Conference will take place by remote means (Zoom). The parties will receive instructions closer to the hearing date on how to appear for the Settlement Conference. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER

~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings AND Minute Order

Sept. 10, 2022

Sept. 10, 2022

PACER
26

MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held via video conference (Zoom) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 12/19/2022 as to the following Plaintiffs: Steven Passal, Russell Vreeland, John Ruffner, Jennifer Loret de Mola, and Anthony Pires. Plaintiffs, Steven Passal, Russell Vreeland, John Ruffner, Jennifer Loret de Mola, and Anthony Pires all present and participated separately in the settlement conference. Defense representatives, Patrick Flaherty (Risk Manager for City of Sacramento) and Bernard Sarmiento (Claims Administrator for City of Sacramento) all present. After discussions with the court, parties reached a verbal settlement as to Plaintiffs, Steven Passal, John Ruffner, and Jennifer Loret de Mola. Terms of the settlement stated on the record by the Court. All pending dates as to Plaintiffs, Steven Passal, John Ruffner, and Jennifer Loret de Mola are VACATED. Other pending dates as to other plaintiffs are not affected. Dispositional documents to be filed within 45 days. As to Plaintiff, Russell Vreeland: Case did not settle. As to Plaintiff, Anthony Pires: After discussions with parties, the Settlement Conference as to this Plaintiff was continued to 12/20/2022 at 9:00 AM via Zoom before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Plaintiffs' Counsel Mark Merin, Paul Masuhara, and Robert Chalfant (not present for the Settlement Conference of Plaintiff, Steven Passal) present. Defendants' Counsel Chance Trimm present. Court Reporter: VCCR. (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 12/20/2022)

Dec. 19, 2022

Dec. 19, 2022

PACER
27

MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held via video conference (Zoom) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 12/20/2022 as to the following Plaintiffs: Anthony Pires, Elisabth Crouchley, and Joshua Ruiz. Plaintiffs, Anthony Pires, Elisabth Crouchley, and Joshua Ruiz all present and participated separately in the settlement conference. Defense representatives, Patrick Flaherty (Risk Manager for City of Sacramento) and Bernard Sarmiento (Claims Administrator for City of Sacramento) all present. As to Joshua Ruiz: Case did not settle. As to Anthony Pires: After discussions with the court, parties reached a verbal settlement. Terms of the settlement stated on the record by the Court. All pending dates are VACATED. Other pending dates as to remaining plaintiffs are not affected. Dispositional documents to be filed within 45 days. As to Elisabeth Crouchley: After discussions with the court, parties reached a verbal settlement subject to board approval. Terms of the settlement stated on the record by the Court. All pending dates are VACATED. Other pending dates as to remaining plaintiffs are not affected. Dispositional documents to be filed within 60 days. Plaintiffs' Counsel Mark Merin and Paul Masuhara present. Defendants' Counsel Chance Trimm present. Court Reporter: VCCR (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 12/21/2022)

Dec. 20, 2022

Dec. 20, 2022

PACER
28

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/20/2022: After discussions with counsel and on the Court's own motion, the Settlement Conference as to Plaintiff Daniel Garza is RESET for 1/3/2023 at 10:00 AM via Zoom before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties will be sent Zoom appearance instructions closer to the hearing date. (Text Only Entry) (Waldrop, A) Modified on 12/21/2022 (Waldrop, A). (Entered: 12/21/2022)

Dec. 21, 2022

Dec. 21, 2022

PACER

~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings AND Settlement Conference

Dec. 21, 2022

Dec. 21, 2022

PACER

~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings AND Minute Order

Dec. 21, 2022

Dec. 21, 2022

PACER
29

MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held via video conference (Zoom) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 1/3/2023 as to the following Plaintiffs: Joshua Ruiz and Daniel Garza. Plaintiff, Russell Vreeland was not present at the settlement conference but was also addressed by the Court. Counsel confirmed Joshua Ruiz would also participate in a further settlement conference before Judge Newman. Plaintiffs, Joshua Ruiz and Daniel Garza present and participated separately in the settlement conference. Defense representatives, Patrick Flaherty (Risk Manager for City of Sacramento) and Bernard Sarmiento (Claims Administrator for City of Sacramento) all present. As to Daniel Garza: Case did not settle. As to Joshua Ruiz: After discussions with the court, parties reached a verbal settlement subject to City Council approval. Terms of the settlement stated on the record by the Court. All pending dates are VACATED. Other pending dates as to remaining plaintiffs are not affected. Dispositional documents to be filed within 45 days. As to Russel Vreeland: Parties reached a verbal settlement prior to the 1/3/2023 settlement conference. All pending dates are VACATED. Other pending dates as to remaining plaintiffs are not affected. Dispositional documents to be filed within 45 days. Plaintiffs' Counsel Mark Merin and Paul Masuhara present. Defendants' Counsel Chance Trimm present. Court Reporter: VCCR (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 01/04/2023)

Jan. 3, 2023

Jan. 3, 2023

PACER

~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings AND Settlement Conference

Jan. 4, 2023

Jan. 4, 2023

PACER
30

STIPULATION of PARTIAL DISMISSAL with prejudice by Elisabeth Crouchley, Jennifer Loret de Mola, Steven Passal, Anthony Pires, John Ruffner, Joshua Ruiz, Russell Vreeland. (Merin, Mark) Modified on 2/1/2023 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 01/31/2023)

Jan. 31, 2023

Jan. 31, 2023

PACER
31

STIPULATION of DISMISSAL without prejudice by Daniel Garza. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 01/31/2023)

Jan. 31, 2023

Jan. 31, 2023

RECAP
32

MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY): Pursuant to the Stipulations of Dismissal filed 1/31/2023 30, 31, THIS ACTION IS TERMINATED, and all pending dates and deadlines are VACATED. CASE CLOSED. (Kirksey Smith, K) (Entered: 01/31/2023)

Jan. 31, 2023

Jan. 31, 2023

PACER

~Util - Terminate Civil Case AND Minute Order

Jan. 31, 2023

Jan. 31, 2023

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Police Violence Protests

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 18, 2020

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Several Sacramento residents injured in the protests after the killing of George Floyd

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

City of Sacramento (Sacramento), City

Sacramento Police Department (Sacramento), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Disability and Disability Rights:

Disability, unspecified

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)

Policing:

Excessive force

Pepper/OC Spray (policing)