Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland

N.D. California

Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland

DecidedJanuary 10, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-03866

StatusUnknown

This text of Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland (Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ANTI POLICE-TERROR PROJECT, et al., 9 Case No. 20-cv-03866-JCS Plaintiffs, 10 v. REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 11 JOINT BRIEF RE STIPULATION TO CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., CERTIFY CLASS 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 139 13

14 15 Although the parties have stipulated to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court bears 16 an independent responsibility to determine whether each Rule 23 requirement is satisfied before 17 certifying a class. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) 18 (“Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine whether 19 the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.”). In its Order Denying Motion 20 for Class Certification Without Prejudice (dkt. 124), the Court found that Plaintiffs’ proposed class 21 definition did not satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements or the requirements of 22 Rule23(b)(2). Among other things, the Court expressed concern that the class was not limited to 23 peaceful protestors and that it included individuals subjected to munitions deployed by both OPD 24 and mutual aid partners. The Court also found that it was not clear any named plaintiff was 25 subjected to munitions deployed by mutual aid partners rather than OPD officers or that all of the 26 uses of tear gas to which class members were subjected were the result of a common policy or 27 course of conduct at the command staff level. 1 why their proposed class definition meets the requirements of Rule 23 and addressing the specific 2 || concerns set forth by the Court in its order denying class certification. The parties may seek an 3 extension of this date for good cause. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: January 10, 2022 , J PH C. SPERO 8 ief Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ANTI POLICE-TERROR PROJECT, et al., 9 Case No. 20-cv-03866-JCS Plaintiffs, 10 v. REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 11 JOINT BRIEF RE STIPULATION TO CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., CERTIFY CLASS 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 139 13

14 15 Although the parties have stipulated to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court bears 16 an independent responsibility to determine whether each Rule 23 requirement is satisfied before 17 certifying a class. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) 18 (“Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine whether 19 the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.”). In its Order Denying Motion 20 for Class Certification Without Prejudice (dkt. 124), the Court found that Plaintiffs’ proposed class 21 definition did not satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements or the requirements of 22 Rule23(b)(2). Among other things, the Court expressed concern that the class was not limited to 23 peaceful protestors and that it included individuals subjected to munitions deployed by both OPD 24 and mutual aid partners. The Court also found that it was not clear any named plaintiff was 25 subjected to munitions deployed by mutual aid partners rather than OPD officers or that all of the 26 uses of tear gas to which class members were subjected were the result of a common policy or 27 course of conduct at the command staff level. 1 why their proposed class definition meets the requirements of Rule 23 and addressing the specific 2 || concerns set forth by the Court in its order denying class certification. The parties may seek an 3 extension of this date for good cause. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: January 10, 2022 , J PH C. SPERO 8 ief Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anti-police-terror-project-v-city-of-oakland-cand-2022.