NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 NAACP OF SAN JOSE/ SILICON 5 VALLEY, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01705-PJH

6 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE LETTER TO CLARIFY 7 v. RULING

8 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 155 9 Defendants.

11 The court is in receipt of a letter filed by plaintiffs’ counsel, seeking clarification of a 12 portion of the court’s summary judgment order. See Dkt. 155. Specifically, plaintiffs 13 request clarification as to the viability of the state law claims brought by plaintiffs Swift 14 and Allen against defendant City of San Jose. The letter argues that the claims should 15 remain viable, due to the doctrine of vicarious liability (or respondeat superior). See id. 16 (citing Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002)). 17 The court finds that plaintiffs’ letter is more properly construed as a request to 18 seek reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment order, and the court further 19 concludes that the request must be GRANTED based on the arguments presented in the 20 letter. Accordingly, the court will allow both sides an opportunity to present their 21 arguments regarding Swift and Allen’s state law claims against the City. Defendants may 22 file a response by 12:00 noon on August 31, 2023. Plaintiffs may file a reply by 23 September 1, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. Both briefs are limited to five (5) pages. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 28, 2023 26 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 27 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON