SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ORDER (1) SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (2) VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

This Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement and request for entry of an order is submitted by all named and remaining parties in this action, including: Plaintiffs Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz (collectively, "Plaintiffs"); Defendants the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, and Sonoma County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas in his official capacity (collectively, "County Defendants"); and the City of Santa Rosa and the Santa Rosa Police Department (collectively, "City Defendants"). As discussed below, the parties request the Court to set a briefing schedule and hearing date on motions for partial summary judgment, and to vacate the Case Management Conference currently set for December 7, 2015. The parties believe the information provided herein demonstrates good cause for their requests.

1. STATUS UPDATE SINCE THE FILING OF THE OCTOBER 26th CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

On March 30, May 4, July 27, September 2, and October 26, 2015, the parties submitted Joint Case Management Statements in preparation for the Case Management Conference that was ultimately continued to December 7, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 245, 261, 280, 286, and 290.) The parties incorporate the statements made in those CMC Statements herein, and provide the status update as set forth below. At the time of the filing of this statement, the only matter on calendar in this case is the Case Management Conference set for December 7th.

Since the filing of their last case management statement, counsel for the parties have negotiated the terms of a proposed stipulation for entry of a final judgment to dispense with the necessity of a trial in this case. The terms of the stipulation would provide, inter alia, for the setting of an amount of compensatory damages for each plaintiff, a waiver of any claim for treble damages under statute, and a dismissal with prejudice of all claims except two: (1) Plaintiffs' request for entry of a judgment on their claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based solely on this Court's prior rulings that the 30-day hold of their vehicles in impound under California Vehicle Code § 14602.6 violated their Fourth Amendment rights ("Claim #1"); and (2) Plaintiffs' claims that the Court's prior rulings that the 30-day hold of their vehicles in impound under California Vehicle Code § 14602.6 violated their Fourth Amendment rights also entitle them to entry of judgment on their identical claims brought under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1 ("Claim #2").

Pursuant to the proposed stipulation, the dismissal of all claims aside from Claims #1 and #2 would include dismissal of all federal and state law claims relating to the initial seizures of Plaintiffs' vehicles (as opposed to the 30-day hold of their vehicles) as well as all due process claims. In addition, the stipulation would expressly allow the parties to appeal any of the Court's prior orders entered in the case that are outside the terms of the stipulation, including but not limited to the Court's order denying class certification and its liability rulings on the § 1983 claims.

While such a stipulation has not yet been finalized, and Defendants have not yet provided their assent to its proposed terms, counsel believe that the terms of the proposed stipulation are viable and are in the process of obtaining client consent.

2. REQUEST TO SET BREIFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The terms of the proposed stipulation as discussed above demonstrate a need for the Court to resolve outstanding legal issues with respect to both of the Plaintiffs' Bane Act claims and Plaintiff Ruiz's Monell claim against the City Defendants. Specifically, while the Court in its previous orders resolved the § 1983 Monell claim identified above as Claim #1 against the County Defendants, it did not make a liability finding on Claim #1 under Monell against the City Defendants. Further, the parties continue to dispute whether a finding of liability on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims (Claim #1) also necessarily entitle Plaintiffs to a finding of liability and statutory damages on their Bane Act claims (Claim #2).

At this time, the parties believe that there are no disputed issues of material fact regarding these claims, rendering them appropriate for partial summary judgment motions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Further, the parties also believe that the legal issues surrounding these claims are the only remaining hurtles which prevent the parties from stipulating to entry of a final judgment.

Accordingly, the parties have agreed and request the Court to consider the claims and issues as set out above pursuant to a motion brought by Plaintiffs for partial summary judgment, to which Defendants may respond by opposition and/or cross-motion. The parties propose the following briefing and hearing schedule on such motions:

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed stipulation, the Court's decision on the motion(s) for partial summary judgment should permit the parties to request entry of judgment resolving all claims and issues in this case at the trial court level. The parties believe that this proposed process will conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, and will enable this case to reach a final resolution at the trial court level after years of litigation; accordingly, good cause supports the parties' requests herein.

3. REQUEST TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties believe that the terms of their proposed stipulation outlined above will serve to resolve this case in a timely manner from this point forward. Further, the parties do not believe that a Case Management Conference would assist them in reaching a final resolution of the case at this time.

Accordingly, the parties request the Court to vacate the Case Management Conference currently set for December 7, 2015. The parties also request the Court to refrain from setting a new Case Management Conference date until after resolution of the motion(s) for partial summary judgment, as discussed above, if necessary.

Supplemental Joint Case U.S.D.C. No. cv-11-05817 TEH (NC) Management Statement, et al. 5

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing stipulated request, and with good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The claims and issues identified in the parties' stipulated request shall be presented to the Court via Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which is also subject to cross-motions of the Defendants, based on the following briefing and hearing schedule:

2. The Case Management Conference currently set for December 7, 2015, is hereby vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.