United States District Court, N.D. California
November 18, 2005.
LOCAL 10, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, et al., Plaintiffs,
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: THELTON HENDERSON, Senior District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF LOCAL 10, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all claims asserted by Plaintiff Local 10,
International Longshore and Warehouse Union. After carefully
considering the parties' written arguments and the record in this
case, the Court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary
and hereby cancels the hearing scheduled for Monday, November 28,
2005. The Court now GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants'
motion as follows: 1. The motion is DENIED as to Local 10's First
Amendment claims because there are disputed issues of material
fact, thus making summary adjudication improper. For example,
while reasonable minds may differ, the Court concludes that
whether police officers on the scene recognized longshoremen as a
separate group rather than as part of the protest, and therefore
whether any longshoremen were subjected to force as a result of
union-based animus, is a genuine issue for trial. Similarly, it
is a genuine issue for trial whether an observer would have
reasonably understood that the union members were intending to
communicate respect for the demonstration by standing by, and
therefore whether the longshoremen were engaged in expressive
The Court need not rule on Defendants' objections to evidence
because the Court did not rely on any of the disputed evidence in
reaching these conclusions. 2. The motion is GRANTED as to Local 10's state constitutional
claims. Although Local 10 asserts claims based on free speech and
free association under the California constitution, the union
failed to raise any opposition to Defendants' argument that these
claims do not give rise to monetary damages. The Court construes
such silence as a concession. Because all injunctive and
declaratory relief claims have been dismissed pursuant to the
parties' settlement agreement, judgment to Defendants on these
claims as asserted by Local 10 is therefore proper.
3. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects as unopposed.
Although Local 10 asserted various other claims in the third
amended complaint, the union made clear in its opposition papers
that it only seeks damages based on its state and federal
constitutional free speech and free association claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.