Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Derek E. Turner and Mari Toban Blome v. Kris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 12, 2012

DEREK E. TURNER AND MARI TOBAN BLOME, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
KRIS LAFOND; MEG PLANKA; DANIEL SCHNEIDER; CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL COMMISSIONER J.A. FARROW; THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward M. Chen U.S. District Judge

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP AJAY S. KRISHNAN, SBN 222476 2 SHILPI AGARWAL, SBN 270749 633 Battery Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 4 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 Derek E. Turner and Mari Toban Blome 6 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN P. DEVINE, SBN 170773 7 HARRY T. (CHIP) GOWER, III, SBN 170784 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 8 San Francisco , CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 703-5522 9 Facsimile: (415) 703-5480 Attorneys for Defendants 10 Kris Lafond, Margaret Planka, Daniel Schneider, California Highway Patrol Commissioner J.A. Farrow 11 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 12 KIMON MANOLIUS, SBN 154971 JULIA H. VEIT, SBN 209207 13 EMILY M. CHARLEY, SBN 238542 425 Market Street, 26th Floor 14 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 15 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 16 Attorneys for Defendant Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District 17

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT ORDER RESETTING CMC Date: September 14, 2012 Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen Dept.: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor

This Joint Case Management Conference Statement is submitted by: (1) Plaintiffs Derek 2 E. Turner and Mari Toban Blome (collectively "Plaintiffs"); (2) California Highway Patrol 3 (collectively "CHP Defendants"); and (3) Defendant the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and 5 Transportation District ("District"). This Statement is submitted pursuant to the Court's order at 6 the case management conference held on May 25, 2012. (Docket Number 128.) Please see the 7 parties' previous Case Management Conference Statement (Docket Number 125) for all categories 8 not covered by this Joint Case Management Conference Statement. 9

Defendants Kris Lafond, Meg Planka, Daniel Schneider, and Commissioner Joseph A. Farrow 4

This is a civil rights action brought by two different plaintiffs relating primarily to First 10 and Fourth Amendment rights as they pertain to the District's policy of requiring individuals and 11 groups to obtain a permit before engaging in expressive conduct with signs or props on the Golden 12 Gate Bridge. The District is responsible for developing and drafting the Ordinance that imposes 13 the permit requirement. The CHP is one among various law enforcement agencies-including the 14 District's own security personnel-that enforce the Ordinance. In August 2010, the parties filed 15 summary judgment motions, which were heard in October 2010. Judge Patel issued a written 16 order on January 7, 2011: (1) granting Blome summary judgment on her facial challenge to the 17 Ordinance; (2) denying the District's summary judgment motion as to both Blome and Turner's 18 case; and, (3) granting in part and denying in part the CHP Defendants' summary judgment 19 motion against Turner.

1. May 25, 2012 Case Management Conference

At the last case management conference, Plaintiffs and the District informed the Court 22 about the progress of settlement negotiations. At that time, Plaintiffs and the District had agreed 23 in concept to revisions to the District's Expressive Activities Ordinance. The District had 24 transmitted a draft of the revised Expressive Activities Ordinance for Plaintiffs' review, and 25

Plaintiffs had made a demand to the District for attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs indicated that they had 26 begun to review the draft Ordinance transmitted by the District, and believed Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs and the District reached agreement on terms of the ordinance and if Plaintiffs and the District were not far from reaching a consensus on the language. The District indicated that once 28 District could agree to settle the attorneys' fee component, such terms would need to be approved 2 by the District's Board of Directors. Moreover, the Board would need to amend the Expressive 3 Activities Ordinance through a noticed hearing. The Court instructed the parties to move forward 4 towards settlement and set a further Case Management Conference for September 14, 2012. 5

2.Current Case Status

In May and June, Plaintiffs and the District negotiated the language of the revised 7 ordinance and attorneys' fees, reaching agreement on the terms to be presented to the District's 8 Board of Directors. The District's Board of Directors approved the terms of the settlement in 9 concept. On August 10, 2012, the Board amended the Expressive Activities Ordinance in line 10 with Plaintiffs' and the District's agreement, also revising other terms. The remaining step is to 11 finalize the language of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs and the District are close to an 12 agreement on the language, and expect that the settlement will be ready for execution in advance 13 of the Case Management Conference. 14 15

IT IS SO ORDERED that the further CMC is reset from 9/14/12 to 11/2/12 at 10:30 a.m. An updated joint CMC statement shall be filed by 10/26/12. The 11/2/12 CMC will be vacated 8 once a stipulation for dismissal is filed. 9

TES DISTRI A CT

IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

20120912

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.