Case: Allen v. City of Oakland

3:00-cv-04599 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 17, 2000

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 17, 2000, several citizens filed this §1983 class action lawsuit against the City of Oakland and its police department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a group of rogue police officers within the OPD known as "the Riders" violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by kidnapping, beating, and planting drugs on the plaintiff. The plaintiffs sought damages and attorneys’ fees. On March 26, 2001, District Judge Charles A. Legge ordered th…

On March 26, 2001, District Judge Charles A. Legge ordered that several other civil rights cases pending against the OPD be consolidated with this case under the consolidated case number C00-4599 TEH (JL). These cases were sometimes referred to as the "Riders" cases and involved approximately 119 plaintiffs represented by private counsel and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Following consolidation, the plaintiffs' complaint was amended three times.

The case was eventually transferred to District Judge Thelton E. Henderson. The parties engaged in protracted settlement negotiations and participated in numerous court ordered settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge James Larson. A settlement was reached in early 2003, after about eighteen months of negotiations.

On March 14, 2003, Judge Henderson approved the settlement agreement and dismissal of the claims by the plaintiffs/putative class members. The settlement called for payment of $10.9 million to the plaintiffs and the implementation of numerous reforms to OPD policies and procedures over a five year monitoring period. Reforms were to be made in the following core areas:

Internal Affairs Investigations
Discipline
Field Supervision
Management Oversight
Use of Force Reporting
Personnel Information Management System (PIMS)
Training
Auditing and Review Systems

On March 24, 2003, the court granted a motion for limited intervention by the Oakland Police Officers' Association.

On August 20, 2003, the court appointed Rachel Burgess, Kelli Evans, Charles Gruber, and Christy Lopez to serve as the independent monitoring team (IMT) to oversee the reform implementation process.

Meanwhile, in other proceedings, state criminal charges were brought against four OPD officers for alleged crimes stemming from the Riders scandal. After a nine month criminal trial, three OPD officers were acquitted of most charges, with the jury deadlocked on other charges. The alleged ringleader of the Riders fled to escape prosecution.

On June 26, 2008, the parties stipulated that the court's jurisdiction could be extended until April 21, 2010. The settlement agreement expired by its own terms on January 22, 2010. On January 27, 2010, the court issued an order that resulted in a memorandum of understanding. The order incorporated the terms of the 2003 settlement agreement between the parties, and allowed monitoring to continue until January 2012. An additional independent monitoring team was also appointed to issue quarterly reports regarding OPD's compliance.

On June 23, 2011, the parties entered into an amended memorandum of understanding (AMOU), extending the terms of the agreement until January 22, 2014, with a proviso requiring narrowing and continuation of the AMOU if compliance had not been achieved by January 2014.

On September 15, 2011, in a joint status conference, the parties acknowledged that progress toward achieving the 'Tasks' for compliance had ground to a halt. The monitor attributed the lack of progress to a failure of the City of Oakland to take the litigation seriously. Similarly, on January 19, 2012, in a joint status conference, compliance was 'not in sight' and had 'stagnated.' The monitor's Eighth Quarterly Report (under the 2011 AMOU) reported that little progress had been made in the two years since his appointment. The plaintiffs requested a briefing schedule for a motion to put the Oakland Police Department into receivership.

On January 24, 2012, as an alternative to considering receivership, the court conferred additional authority on the monitor, requiring the chief of police to consult with the monitor on all major decisions that would impact the Settlement Agreement. The monitor was instructed to report to the Mayor and City Administrators any time the Chief took actions against his advice. If the City did not reverse the Chief of Police's decision, then the court would hold a hearing to determine if the monitor's recommendation should be implemented.

On February 22, 2012, the court formally announced its consideration of the possibility of receivership and scheduled briefing. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for December 13, 2012.

In the meantime, the monitor filed a Ninth Quarterly Report on April 30, 2012, noting several particular problems with the conduct of OPD police officers during the Occupy Oakland protests. The monitoring team was concerned about outsourcing police misconduct investigations because it indicated that the breadth of complaints was beyond internal affairs' capacity, demonstrated a lack of confidence in unbiased investigation by internal affairs, and jeopardized compliance under sections of the original negotiated settlement agreement.

The parties finished briefing the receivership issue. As described by Judge Henderson in an order on the matter, "Nearly ten years after the parties agreed to a consent decree that was to have been completed in five years but that remains incomplete, the Court was scheduled to hear Plaintiffs' motion to appoint a receiver. After reviewing Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, it became clear that Defendants did not dispute many of the issues raised by Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs' conclusion that Defendants would be unable to achieve compliance without further intervention by this Court. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on how this case should proceed and, following the parties' request, referred this case to a magistrate judge for settlement." The settlement discussions concluded on December 5, 2012, with an agreement for additional oversight by a compliance director, appointed by and answerable to the court, who would have "directive authority" over OPD, relevant to the existing consent decrees. The monitor was to stay in place as well. While not quite a receivership, the compliance director was assigned extensive authority, including to direct individual expenditures of up to $250,000, and to discipline, demote, or remove the Chief of Police, Assistant Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs, subject to appeal to the court. The court approved this settlement on December 12, 2012.

In March 2013—pursuant to its December 12, 2012 order—the court appointed a compliance director. The director first issued a remedial action plan that May, addressing in particular (1) supervisors' failure to intervene in or report unacceptable behavior, (2) the lack of impartiality in investigations of officer misconduct, (3) executive leadership's inaction repudiating the previous two deficiencies, as well as (4) its neglect in proactively addressing them. At the end of May, the director issued a benchmark plan, thoroughly detailing the priorities, goals, and timeframe for compliance. Finally, he issued six monthly progress reports from July through December 2013. In the last report, he identified "[n]otable progress across a broad range of complex issues."

In February 2014, the court entered an order consolidating the roles of compliance director and monitor, terminating the existing appointment and giving compliance authority to the position, described as "broad, essentially receiver-like powers in areas related to the negotiated reforms, including procurement authority for individual expenditures not exceeding $250,000 and the power to discipline, demote, or remove the Chief of Police." The court explained that the bifurcation of the two roles had proven "unnecessarily duplicative," and "less efficient and more expensive than the Court contemplated." The existing monitor took on the new role.

Between April 2014 and June 2015, the monitor noted significant improvement in OPD's compliance with the settlement agreement. Over this period, the monitor found that OPD was in full compliance with a majority of the tasks outlined in the agreement. He closely monitored several areas of partial compliance, such as reporting misconduct; vehicle stops, field investigations, and detentions; and responding to allegations of retaliation against witnesses. Although there were reasons to have "cautious optimism," including an influx of new officers, a decrease in complaints, a reduction in the use of force, and a new set of personnel in OPD leadership roles, there was still much to be done to institutionalize these reforms. He feared that OPD was more focused on achieving technical compliance with the settlement agreement instead of achieving sustainable reform.

On May 21, 2015, Judge Henderson issued an order modifying the monitoring plan. The court called for monthly monitoring reports, instead of quarterly. Additionally, the court held that any tasks with which OPD has been in substantial compliance for one year would no longer be subject to monitoring. The areas that remained under active monitoring after this order were: (1) complaint procedures for the Internal Affairs Division; (2) span of control for supervisors; (3) Force Review Board; (4) Executive Force Review Board; (5) vehicle stops, field investigation, and detentions; (5) use of PAS; and (6) consistency of discipline policy. Between July 2015 and February 2018, Mr. Warshaw filed monthly status reports monitoring OPD's compliance with the settlement agreement and the institutionalization of reform.

On December 11, 2015, Judge Henderson issued an order requiring that the City implement a revised policy with respect to the review of uses of force. Under the policy, the review boards must assess whether the use of deadly force may have been avoided and identify tactics, strategies, and opportunities that may have avoided the use of force.

In September 2016, twelve OPD officers were disciplined and four were criminally prosecuted for sexual and professional misconduct involving a minor. A court-appointed investigator issued a report on the incident on June 21, 2017. The investigator found that OPD's initial investigation was wholly inadequate and that OPD's investigatory process was deficient. Additionally, OPD failed to give the victim appropriate attention and care because she was young, engaged in sex work, struggled with mental health issues, and used drugs. The report found that the monitor, Mayor, and City Administrator did not learn of the sexual misconduct allegations until March 2016 and criticized the Mayor and City Administrator for not doing enough to examine OPD's failure to adequately investigate the allegations. The report also included several recommendations, including training and procedural improvements for notifying the DA's Office of misconduct allegations.

Following the investigator's June 2017 report, the City issued a statement whereby it agreed to improve its investigation procedures. Specifically, the City agreed to provide a more robust review of officer misconduct allegations, provide better and higher-level oversight of criminal investigations, and improve hiring practices to better screen officers at every step including recruitment, hiring, and training.

On August 14, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick. The court issued several joint status conference statements, in which it documented continued compliance efforts with respect to the settlement agreement, as well as OPD's action plan for assessing allegations of OPD criminal conduct. Additionally, Mr. Warshaw was still preparing monthly status reports tracking OPD's compliance with the agreement.

On November 16, 2018, the court issued a joint status conference statement noting that several new problems had arisen, calling into question whether OPD had actually made as much compliance progress as appeared to be the case earlier in the year. Specifically, use of force statistics had been erratic, the number of complaints had risen, problems with the hiring process had been discovered, and the comparative discipline study that OPD had been planning to implement had been stalled. The statement also identified three areas in which OPD had not yet achieved compliance with the settlement agreement: (1) stop data; (2) complaint procedures; and (3) consistency of discipline.

On April 2, 2019, while monitoring was ongoing, the Coalition for Police Accountability filed a motion to intervene and a request for judicial notice. The City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Officers Association filed motions in opposition. The court denied this motion in a minute entry without a formal order on May 29, 2020. The Coalition for Police Accountability appealed this denial to the Ninth Circuit on June 27, 2019. On September 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued their decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the motion to intervene was untimely. 825 F. App'x 450.

On January 14, 2021, the court retained the firm Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP to investigate an Instagram page named @crimereductionteam, which had been posting sexist and racist content, for connections with OPD. On September 20, 2021, the court released an order regarding the conclusions and recommendations stemming from the “Instagram Investigation.” The account was owned by a recently terminated OPD officer, who had been the subject of an investigation for an officer-related shooting before their termination. The report concluded that OPD had taken too long to recognize the “bigoted and corrosive nature” of the account and to start an investigation. The report made recommendations for heightened awareness of workplace discrimination and creating clear standards for members of OPD on social media.

Monitoring the case was ongoing until 2022. On May 12, 2022, court held that the City of Oakland had reached substantial compliance with the injunction and put the city into a one year sustainability period starting June 1, 2022, after which federal oversight would end. The court said that the injunction had led to “tangible improvements in policing in Oakland and to the promise that a culture that understands and supports constitutional policing is taking root.” During the sustainability period, the court required that the monitor continue assessing compliance, designate a sustainability liaison in OPD, reduce reports to a quarterly rather than monthly basis, and perform three site visits. If OPD did not remain in full compliance during the sustainability period, federal oversight would continue.

Since the beginning of the sustainability period, the monitor made two reports on October 3rd and December 2nd, 2022. In the October report, the monitor found OPD in compliance, but was concerned about inconsistency of discipline for officers of different races and the use of TASERs on fleeing suspects and called for more internal investigation. In the December report, the monitor found that OPD was in compliance with the injunction, except for Task 5, which required OPD to set up an infrastructure for taking and investigating complaints against OPD because two disciplinary matters had been referred to outside counsel, and the information coming from the investigations was “deeply troubling” but not yet available to the public. As of December 22, 2023, the sustainability period is ongoing.

	Document
3:01-cv-00080	Docket Higgs v. City of Oakland	March 14, 2003	March 14, 2003 Docket
3:00-cv-04599	Docket [PACER]	March 25, 2021	March 25, 2021 Docket
1 3:00-cv-04599	Civil Cover Sheet	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 Complaint
1-1 3:00-cv-04599	Complaint for Damages	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 Complaint
	A Message from Chief Richard L. Word No Court	June 3, 2003	June 3, 2003 Press Release
3:00-cv-04599	Settlement Agreement Re: Pattern And Practice Claims	Feb. 4, 2004	Feb. 4, 2004 Settlement Agreement
618 3:00-cv-04599	Amended Memorandum of Understanding RE: Post NSA Terms and Conditions . . .	June 23, 2011	June 23, 2011 Other
633 3:00-cv-04599	Joint Status Conference RE: Non-Monetary Settlement Issues.	Sept. 15, 2011	Sept. 15, 2011 Settlement Agreement
674 3:00-cv-04599	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT	Jan. 19, 2012	Jan. 19, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
675 3:00-cv-04599	Order Vacating January 26, 2012 Status Conference and Conferring Additional Authority On the Monitor Allen v. Oakland County, CA	Jan. 24, 2012	Jan. 24, 2012 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT Fee status pd entered on 12/7/00 in the amount of $ 150.00 ( Receipt No. 4402752); jury demand [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (tnS, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/25/2013: # 1 Complaint) (tnS, ). (Entered: 12/11/2000) 1 Complaint View on Clearinghouse	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 Clearinghouse
2	ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE (ADR Multi-Option) by Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman : counsels' case management statement to be filed by 4/16/01 ; initial case management conference will be held 4:00 4/23/01 . (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 PACER
3	EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman by Plaintiffs for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 PACER
	RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF)	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 PACER
4	NOTICE by Plaintiff of related case(s) C-00-4073 BZ [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 PACER
5	RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant City of Oakland on 12/8/00 by serving agent, Bobbie Webb. [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
6	DECLINATION to proceed before magistrate by defendant City of Oakland, defendant Richard Word [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/15/2000)	Dec. 15, 2000	Dec. 15, 2000 PACER
7	CLERK'S NOTICE of impending reassignment to a United States District Judge, The Case Management Conference set for 4/23/01 at 4:00 pm will NOT be held [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2000)	Dec. 18, 2000	Dec. 18, 2000 PACER
8	ORDER by Executive Committee Case reassigned to Judge Charles A. Legge referred to Judge Charles A. Legge the motion for appointment of Rhonda Bryant as guardian ad litem for Matthew Watson, a minor [3-1] ( Date Entered: 12/26/00) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/26/2000)	Dec. 22, 2000	Dec. 22, 2000 PACER
9	NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Charles A. Legge by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word to dismiss [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)	Dec. 28, 2000	Dec. 28, 2000 PACER
10	MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word in support of their motion to dismiss [9-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)	Dec. 28, 2000	Dec. 28, 2000 PACER
11	REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word re motion to dismiss [9-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)	Dec. 28, 2000	Dec. 28, 2000 PACER
12	MOTION before Judge Charles A. Legge by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word to deny class certification [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)	Dec. 28, 2000	Dec. 28, 2000 PACER
13	MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendants City of Oakland and Richard Word in support of their motion to deny class certification [12-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2001)	Dec. 28, 2000	Dec. 28, 2000 PACER
14	EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Charles A. Legge by Plaintiff for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)	Jan. 4, 2001	Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
	RECEIVED [Proposed] Order granting Plaintiffs' ex-parte application for an order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF)	Jan. 4, 2001	Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
15	NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Charles A. Legge by Plaintiffs for leave to commence discovery, and for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)	Jan. 4, 2001	Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
16	DECLARATION of plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of their motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], and for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)	Jan. 4, 2001	Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
	RECEIVED [Proposed] Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], and for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF)	Jan. 4, 2001	Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
17	PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [16-1], order received [0-0], motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], motion for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2], order received [0-0], motion for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2001)	Jan. 4, 2001	Jan. 4, 2001 PACER
20	RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Sgt. Hayter on 1/3/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/2001)	Jan. 5, 2001	Jan. 5, 2001 PACER
18	NOTICE by Plaintiffs of association of attorney Matthew Kumin [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/10/2001)	Jan. 9, 2001	Jan. 9, 2001 PACER
19	AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [16-1], order received [0-0], motion for leave to commence discovery [15-1], motion for a stay of defendants' motion to deny class certification pending completion of discovery on the class certification issues [15-2], order received [0-0], motion for order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to commence discovery and for a stay on defendants' motion to deny class certification [14-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/10/2001)	Jan. 9, 2001	Jan. 9, 2001 PACER
21	CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Statement is due 1/12/01; Initial Case Management Conference set for 2:00 p.m. on 1/17/01 [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/2001)	Jan. 10, 2001	Jan. 10, 2001 PACER
22	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/19/2001)	Jan. 16, 2001	Jan. 16, 2001 PACER
23	MINUTES: (C/R Not Reported) ( Hearing Date: 1/17/01) Case management conference -- Held ; the possibility of two other related cases was brought to the court's attention: C-00-4073-CRB & C-01-0080-WHO [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/19/2001)	Jan. 17, 2001	Jan. 17, 2001 PACER
24	AMENDED NOTICE by Plaintiffs of related case(s) C-00-4073-CRB & C-01-0080-WHO [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2001)	Jan. 19, 2001	Jan. 19, 2001 PACER
25	OBJECTIONS by defendant City of Oakland to related case notice [24-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2001)	Jan. 26, 2001	Jan. 26, 2001 PACER
26	Plaintiffs' position re related cases [24-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/2001)	Jan. 29, 2001	Jan. 29, 2001 PACER
28	ANSWER to plaintiffs' complaint [1-1], and CROSSCLAIM; jury demand by defendant Matthew Hornung against defendants [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2001)	Feb. 15, 2001	Feb. 15, 2001 PACER
29	SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge Further Case Management Conference set for 11:00 a.m. on 5/18/01 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/2001)	Feb. 15, 2001	Feb. 15, 2001 PACER
27	ANSWER to complaint [1-1] AND CROSSCLAIM; jury demand by defendant Clarence Mabanag against defendant City of Oakland [3:00-cv-04599] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2001)	Feb. 16, 2001	Feb. 16, 2001 PACER
30	ANSWER to plaintiffs' complaint [1-1] and CROSSCLAIM; jury demand by defendant Jude Siapno against defendants [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/2001)	Feb. 16, 2001	Feb. 16, 2001 PACER
31	CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Plaintiffs [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)	Feb. 20, 2001	Feb. 20, 2001 PACER
32	NOTICE by Plaintiffs of related case(s) C-01-0727-VRW [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)	Feb. 21, 2001	Feb. 21, 2001 PACER
33	NOTICE OF JOINDER by Defendant/Cross-claimant Matthew Hornung to defendant City of Oakland's objection to related case notice [32-1] [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)	Feb. 21, 2001	Feb. 21, 2001 PACER
34	NOTICE OF JOINDER by defendant Clarence Mabanag to defendant City of Oakland's objection to notice of related cases [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)	Feb. 21, 2001	Feb. 21, 2001 PACER
35	NOTICE OF JOINDER by defendant Jude Siapno in defendant City of Oakland's objection to notice of related cases [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/2001)	Feb. 22, 2001	Feb. 22, 2001 PACER
36	MINUTES: (C/R Not Reported) (Hearing Date: 2/26/01) referring case for settlement conference to Magistrate Judge James Larson [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2001)	Feb. 27, 2001	Feb. 27, 2001 PACER
37	NOTICE AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge James Larson: Settlement conference set for 10:00 a.m. on 5/8/01 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-04599] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2001)	Feb. 27, 2001	Feb. 27, 2001 PACER

Case: Allen v. City of Oakland

3:00-cv-04599 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details