Case: Todd v. Solano County

2:07-cv-00726 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: April 16, 2007

Closed Date: 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 16, 2007, Plaintiff, represented by private attorney Mark E. Merin, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in order to challenge the Sheriff's policies and practices concerning the use of strip and visual body cavity searches in Solano County Jail. Plaintiff, who was arrested on minor criminal charges, complained that he was subsequently strip searched in a group with ten other persons pursuant to a policy under …

On April 16, 2007, Plaintiff, represented by private attorney Mark E. Merin, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in order to challenge the Sheriff's policies and practices concerning the use of strip and visual body cavity searches in Solano County Jail. Plaintiff, who was arrested on minor criminal charges, complained that he was subsequently strip searched in a group with ten other persons pursuant to a policy under which officers routinely subjected custodial detainees to strip and visual body cavity searches prior to arraignment and in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the detainees possessed contraband or weapons.

Plaintiff claimed that such a policy violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as California state law. To remedy the alleged violations, Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and class certification.

On July 29, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint to add four new plaintiffs. The hearing and motions regarding class certification were then repeatedly pushed back as the parties continued discovery and settlement negotiations.

On September 25, 2009, the parties presented their settlement to the court. The settlement was approved 4 days later. Parties agreed that class certification was inappropriate because defendants had revised their policy on November 20, 2003 and again in 2007 to comply with federal law. To remedy the individual violations that had occurred in spite of the policy revisions, the defendants agreed to pay $12,500 to each plaintiff, $100,000 in attorney fees, and $750-$1000 to each person who contacted plaintiff's attorney alleging that they fell within the allegations in the complaint. The defendants paid a total of $210,000, and on September 29, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary Authors

Timothy Shoffner (6/17/2012)

Maurice Youkanna (7/2/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5777568/parties/todd-v-solano/


Judge(s)

Brennan, Edmund F. (California)

Damrell, Frank C. Jr. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Merin, Mark E. (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Cassidy, Terence J (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:07-cv-00726

Docket (PACER)

Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

Docket
1

2:07-cv-00726

Class Action Complaint

April 16, 2007

April 16, 2007

Complaint
18

2:07-cv-00726

Order [Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel]

Feb. 1, 2008

Feb. 1, 2008

Order/Opinion

2008 WL 283988

25

2:07-cv-00726

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Todd v. County of Solano

July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

Complaint
37-1

2:07-cv-00726

JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

Todd v. County of Solano

Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

Pleading / Motion / Brief
38

2:07-cv-00726

ORDER GRANTING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Todd v. County of Solano

Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

Settlement Agreement

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5777568/todd-v-solano/

Last updated April 6, 2025, 10:13 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/1/08 GRANTING 10 MOTION to COMPEL. The DOJ shall produce the documents responsive to defendants 10/17/07 subpoena duces tecum within ten days.(Dillon, M)

Feb. 1, 2008

Feb. 1, 2008

RECAP
24

STIPULATION and ORDER 22 signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 7/29/08 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' may file their First Amended Complaint. Defendants must file a response to the First Amended Complaint within 20 days of it being electronically filed and served. (Krueger, M)

July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

RECAP
30

STIPULATION and ORDER 29 to re-set hearing signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 3/11/2009. Motion for Class Certification Hearing is CONTINUED to 7/24/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2 (FCD). Plaintiffs' Motion shall be filed no later than 5/11/2009; defendants' Opposition shall be filed no later than 6/4/2009; and plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed no later than 6/29/2009. (Marciel, M)

March 12, 2009

March 12, 2009

RECAP
32

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 3/31/09 ORDERING the Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification shall be filed no later than 6/4/09; Defendants' Opposition shall be filed no later than 6/25/09; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed no later than 7/9/09. (Becknal, R)

April 1, 2009

April 1, 2009

RECAP
34

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 6/4/09 ORDERING that the hearing on Plaintiff's MOTION for Class Certification is RESET to 9/18/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2 (FCD) before Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. Plaintiffs' ; MOTION shall be e-filed and e-served no later than 7/30/09 (before 5:00 p.m.); Defendants' opposition (if any) shall be e-filed and e- served no later than 8/19/09 (before 5:00 p.m.); and Plaintiffs' reply (if any) shall be e-filed and e- served no later than 9/03/09 (before 5:00 p.m.). The post-Certification of Discovery deadline is CONTINUED to 11/30/2009. The Post-Certification Expert Witnesses Disclosures deadline is CONTINUED to 12/11/2009. The last day for Post-Certification expert discovery is to be completed by 1/29/2010. The Final Pretrial Conference, presently set for 4/9/10 is CONTINUED to 5/7/10 at 1:30 P.M. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

June 4, 2009

June 4, 2009

RECAP
36

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 9/4/09 ORDERING that pursuant to the representation of the parties, in the above action, the court has determined that this case has settled. In accordance with the provis ions of Local Rule 16-160, dispositional documents are to be filed on or before October 9, 2009. All dates/hearings set in this matter, to include any pending motions, are hereby VACATED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER. (Becknal, R)

Sept. 4, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

RECAP
38

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 9/28/09 ORDERING the settlement is APPROVED; complaint is DISMISSED; and the claims of pltfs are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)

Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Strip Search Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 16, 2007

Closing Date: 2009

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

CA residents arrested from 04/16/2005 through 04/16/2007 who were subjected to strip / cavity searches at the Solano County Jail prior to being arraigned and without reasonable suspicion.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling

Defendants

Solano County (Solano), County

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $210,000

Issues

General/Misc.:

Disciplinary procedures

Search policies

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Male

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Strip search policy (facilities)