You are on page 1of 6

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 54 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM (112910)


BEN ROSENFELD (SBN 203845)
LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
115 Bartlett Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Tel: (415) 285-8091
Fax: (415) 285-8092
denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com
ben.rosenfeld@comcast.net
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney - SBN 069722
OTIS McGEE, JR., Chief Assistant City Attorney - SBN 71885
DAVID A. PEREDA, Supervising Deputy City Attorney - SBN 237982
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Phone: (510) 238-4921 (Pereda)
Fax: (510) 238-6500
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF OAKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19

The MILES FAMILY: Ms. MONIQUE


MILES, for herself and as Mother and Guardian
of her minor children, Romelle Brown, Ajani
Brown, Jordan Brown, and Jayden Brown; and,
CHELSEA MILES, PAMELA MILES and
ERIN MILES,

20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:15-CV-01799-MMC

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT


Date: January 8, 2016
Time: 10:30 am

Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco


vs.
Senior District Judge Maxine M. Chesney
Oakland Police Officers and Supervisors
JOHN/JANE DOEs Nos. 1-15, the CITY OF
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, and San Leandro
Police Officers and Supervisors Sgt BRIAN
ANTHONY, Sgt BOB SANCHEZ, Sgt CHRIS
ALBERT, and JOHN/JANE DOEs Nos. 16-30,

26
27
28
1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Miles, et al. v City of Oakland, et al. Case No.: 4:15-CV-01799-MMC

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 54 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 6

1. Jurisdiction & Service.

This is a civil rights case, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq., charging Fourth Amendment violations

against plaintiff Monique Miles and members of her family, including four minor children, by members

of the San Leandro and Oakland Police Departments, who they allege rousted them from their home and

held them on a nearby street corner for more than two hours, during which officers ransacked and trashed

their apartment, all without legal grounds or justification of any kind. Defendants deny that any civil

rights violations occurred. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, and, as to

Oakland, the rule of Monell v. Dept. of Social Services. Plaintiffs have settled with the San Leandro

Defendants.

10
11

2. Facts.

12

Plaintiffs Version:

13

Plaintiff Monique Miles, her mother, Pamela Miles, her grown daughter, Chelsea Miles (who was

14

pregnant), and her cousin, Erin Miles, and Moniques four younger children, Romelle Brown, aged 15,

15

Ajani Brown, 10, Jordan Brown, 5, and Jayden Brown, 4, were at home at 1485 East 22nd Street,

16

Apartment 19, in Oakland, on the evening of April 24, 2013, when San Leandro police officers on mutual

17

aid with the Oakland P.D. came to their building to arrest a supposed wanted man who stayed in

18

Apartment 18, downstairs. Despite the fact that the wanted man, alerted by the officers shouting out his

19

name as they approached, came outside and surrendered before they even reached the building, the San

20

Leandro officers first pointed long guns at Pamela Miles, as she sat outside the upstairs apartment with a

21

neighbor, and told her to go inside, then came to the door and demanded that everyone come outside,

22

immediately. There was no time to put clothes on the little kids, no time for anything; the officers simply

23

pushed inside and made everyone leave.

24

Plaintiffs were escorted down the street and held on the corner for the next two or three hours;

25

when they were allowed back in their home they found it had been ransacked and trashed by the police.

26

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this was done by San Leandro officers at the direction and

27

perhaps with some participation by OPD personnel.

28
2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Miles, et al. v City of Oakland, et al. Case No.: 4:15-CV-01799-MMC

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 54 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 6

The Citys Version:

San Leandro (SLPD) police officers responded to a request from the Oakland Police Department

(OPD) to provide security while OPD served arrest and search warrants for an individual who was

considered armed and dangerous. This was part of an effort by a joint task force to recover evidence and

arrest criminal suspects related to gangs plaguing an Oakland housing complex.

After taking the suspect into custody, SLPD officers went to secure the residence for a search by

OPD officers. The residence was a two-unit structure. Plaintiffs occupied the upper unit; the suspect

occupied the lower unit. SLPD officers contacted Plaintiffs, requested that they clear the upper unit, and

obtained consent to a do a safety check of the upper unit. Neither the SLPD nor the OPD trashed the

10

upper unit.

11
12
13
14

3. Legal Issues.
Plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The City denies
that the OPD violated Plaintiffs rights.

15
16
17

4. Motions.
There are no pending motions. The City may file a summary judgment motion.

18
19
20
21

5. Amendment of Pleadings.
Plaintiffs, depending on the way matters develop, may have to amend again when the remaining
individual defendants identities become known.

22
23
24

6. Evidence Preservation.
The presentation of evidence appears to be assured through the regular course of police business.

25
26
27

7. Disclosures.
The parties served their initial Rule 26 disclosures.

28
3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Miles, et al. v City of Oakland, et al. Case No.: 4:15-CV-01799-MMC

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 54 Filed 01/04/16 Page 4 of 6

8. Discovery.

2
3

The parties are cooperating in discovery. The parties anticipate that they will need to conduct
further written discovery and depositions of Plaintiffs and of the officers who were on scene.

4
5

9. Class Action.

Not applicable.

7
8

10. Related Cases.

None known.

10
11

11. Relief.

12

Plaintiffs seek money damages, for themselves and on behalf of the children.

13
14

12. Settlement and ADR.

15

An ENE hearing was scheduled for January 6, 2016. On January 4, 2016, however, Plaintiffs

16

filed a Notice of Settlement with the San Leandro Defendants. Dkt. No. 52 (Jan. 4, 2016). Also,

17

Plaintiffs and the City of Oakland are engaging in good-faith settlement discussions and exchanging

18

documents to help facilitate those discussions. The parties discussed the proposed continuance with the

19

ENE Evaluator. In addition, the parties are having regular status calls with the Evaluator. Given these

20

developments, the parties request that the ENE hearing be continued to March 9, 2016, and have filed a

21

stipulation and proposed order to that end.

22
23

13.

24
25

Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes.


The City of Oakland will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings,

including trial and entry of judgment.

26
27
28

14.

Other References.
This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel
4

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT


Miles, et al. v City of Oakland, et al. Case No.: 4:15-CV-01799-MMC

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 54 Filed 01/04/16 Page 5 of 6

on Multidistrict Litigation.

2
3

15.

4
5

Narrowing of Issues.
The parties will continue to meet and confer throughout the case to determine if they can narrow

the issues. At this time, there are no such issues.

6
7
8

16.

Expedited Trial Procedure.


Not applicable.

9
10
11

17. Scheduling.
The City of Oakland believes that the parties can complete fact discovery by July 2016. The City

12

would like to schedule the summary judgment hearing for September 2016, with expert discovery to

13

close within forty-five days after the hearing. The City respectfully requests that trial be set no sooner

14

than in December 2016.

15
16

18. Trial.

17

Plaintiffs have demanded Trial by Jury. We expect the Evidence would take no more than three

18

days (16-18 hours) of trial.

19
20

19. Non-parties.

21

To plaintiffs knowledge there are no outside interested entities or persons connected to this case.

22

Defendant San Leandro officers and the City of Oakland concur.

23
24
25

20.

26

The attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional

27

Professional Conduct

Conduct for the Northern District of California.

28
5
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Miles, et al. v City of Oakland, et al. Case No.: 4:15-CV-01799-MMC

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 54 Filed 01/04/16 Page 6 of 6

21. Other Matters.

None.

Dated: January 4, 2016

LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

4
5
By: /s/
Dennis Cunningham
Ben Rosenfeld
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6
7
8
9

Dated: January 4, 2016

Barbara J. Parker City Attorney City of Oakland

10
11

By: /s/
David A. Pereda
Attorneys for Defendant
City of Oakland

12
13
14
15
16

ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ATTESTATION

17
18

I, David Pereda, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file the

19

foregoing documents. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.1(i), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of

20

these documents has been obtained from each of its Signatories.

21

Dated: January 4, 2016

22

/s/ David Pereda


David Pereda

23
24
25
26
27
28
6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Miles, et al. v City of Oakland, et al. Case No.: 4:15-CV-01799-MMC