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)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Masuhara, Paul Hajime (California)

Merin, Mark E. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Trimm, Chance (California)

Judge(s)

Brennan, Edmund F. (California)

Shubb, William B. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Masuhara, Paul Hajime (California)

Merin, Mark E. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Trimm, Chance (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 10, 2020 Docket
1

Class Action Complaint for Violation of Civil and Constitutional Rights

Phansopha v. City of Sacromento

June 18, 2020 Complaint
4

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

Garza v. City of Sacramento

Aug. 14, 2020 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

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

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description 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 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 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 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 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 PACER
6

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

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 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 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 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 RECAP
12

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

May 3, 2022 RECAP
13

Certify Class

May 9, 2022 PACER

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Police Violence Protests

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

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):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

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

Equal Protection

Freedom of speech/association

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General:

Excessive force

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Over/Unlawful Detention

Pepper/OC spray

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

disability, unspecified