Brown v. Rafferty

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 20, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-02180·Unknown

Opinion

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ., (SBN 69888) K. CHIKE ODIWE, ESQ., (SBN 315109) Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: (510) 839-5200 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 john.burris@johnburrislaw.com chike.odiwe@johnburrislaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOAH BROWN, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-02180-TLN-CKD

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR Plaintiff, DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 14 vs. AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION

CITY OF RIO VISTA, a municipal corporation; NATALIE RAFFERTY, individually and in his official capacity as an officer for the Rio Vista Police Department; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually and in their official capacity as police officers for the Rio Vista Police Department, Defendants.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: By and through their counsel of record in this action, Plaintiff NOAH BROWN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CITY OF RIO VISTA and NATALIE RAFFERTY (“Defendants”) – the parties – hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the Honorable Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Unlawful Seizure and Fourth Cause of Action for Municipal Liability Under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Monell”), as follows: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. 2. Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for an unlawful seizure). 3. Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for municipal liability pursuant to Monell). 4. In light of the foregoing and in the interests of justice, the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss those portions of Plaintiff's claims as specified herein below. 5. The parties hereby stipulate to, and respectfully request that the Court issue an appropriate Order giving effect to, the following dismissal with prejudice to part of Plaintiff’s claims in this action: 6. Plaintiff hereby stipulates to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action in its entirety: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for an unlawful seizure by Plaintiff NOAH BROWN against Defendants NATALIE RAFFERTY and DOES 1-25. 7. To that effect, the parties hereby stipulate to and jointly request that the Court enter an Order striking the following language from the operative Complaint: the entirety of paragraphs 20-21. 8. Plaintiff hereby stipulates to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action in its entirety: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for municipal liability pursuant to Monell by Plaintiff NOAH BROWN against Defendants CITY OF RIO VISTA and DOES 26-50. 9. To that effect, the parties hereby stipulate to and jointly request that the Court enter an Order striking the following language from the operative Complaint: the entirety of paragraphs 38 through 45. releases the aforementioned dismissed/stricken claim – including all claims for liability or damages or otherwise by Plaintiff against any of the Defendants or their agents or employees – and waives and releases all costs, court fees, and attorneys’ fees arising out of this litigation as to the aforementioned dismissed claim. By and through Plaintiff’s attorneys of record in this action, Plaintiff further affirms that Plaintiff is hereby knowingly, freely, voluntarily, and without duress releasing and waiving these claims for damages or liability, and all associated causes of action, which in any way arise from the incident at issue in this action. 11. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart and a facsimile or electronic signature shall be as valid as an original signature.

DATED: LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

By: Kenneth Chike Odiwe John L. Burris Kenneth Chike Odiwe Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH LLP

By: _/s/ John Robinson JOHN ROBINSON Attorney for Defendant CITY OF RIO VISTA

Dated:

By:/s/_Suli Mastorakos______________________ CARL FESSENDEN SULI MASTORAKOS Attorney for Defendant NATALIE RAFFERTY

ORDER PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, and pursuant to the Court’s inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court’s authority under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States District Court, Eastern District of ° California Local Rules; after due consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other evidence or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in furtherance of the interests of justice: ? 1. The Court hereby Orders that Plaintiff's First Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for unlawful seizure by Plaintiff NOAH BROWN against Defendants NATALIE RAFFERTY I and DOES 1-25 — is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. 2. To that effect, the Court hereby Orders that the following language is stricken from the operative Complaint: the entirety of paragraphs 20 through 21. 3. The Court hereby Orders that Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1S claim for municipal liability pursuant to Monell by Plaintiff NOAH BROWN against Defendants CITY OF RIO VISTA and DOES 26-50 — is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. 4. To that effect, the Court hereby Orders that the following language is stricken from I8 the operative Complaint: the entirety of paragraphs 38 through 45. 5. Furthermore, the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs stipulation to waive and release all costs, court fees, and attorneys’ fees arising out of this litigation between these parties thereto as to a1 the aforementioned dismissed claims and parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ f /) “ / ) Lu Dated: April 20, 2021 AWN a Z Troy L. Nunley> United States District Judge

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

Brown v. Rafferty, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Brown v. Rafferty (Brown v. Rafferty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)