AO 440 (Rev.

12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Northern District of California
HOSETTA ZERTUCHE
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, JAMES
)
GLEASON, SANDRA EOVINO, and KIMBERLY
)
CVII-03691
)
MARUFFI
)
--.... .. ... .. -.-.-----..---..
Defondant
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defondant's name and address)
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110
JAMES GLEASON, 373 West Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95110
SANDRA EOVINO, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110
KIMBERLY MARUFFI, 373 West Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95110
A lawsuit has been filed against you,
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are:
MICHAEL E. ADAMS
LA W OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ADAMS
702 Marshall Street, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94063
Ifyou fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
'F' COURT
JUl 27 2Btt
Date:

Cle;'---
5
10
15
20
25
111 MICHAEL E. ADAMS (SBN: 47278)
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ADAMS
2 II 702 Marshall Street, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94063
3 II Telephone: (650) 599-9463
Fax: (650) 599-9785
4
" 20" U
Attorney for Plaintiff HOSETIA ZERTUCHE
.. "0'" o v
, i.::1 .
.::> 'let ,rjCt Ing
q,,"LI0 Of ,,,Co

,;crn/a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7
5 J. .Ii,',
VL ? 1 " il
I
1};iJ
8
9
II HOSETTA ZERTUCHE,
11 II Plaintiff,
1211
1311 v.
14
" COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, JAMES
GLEASON, SANDRA EOVINO, and
1611 KIMBERLY MARUFFI,
17 Defendants.
18
19
Plaintiff alleges:
..
21
CG,. 11 - 0 3 6 9 1
COMPLAINT FOR FEDERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION,
AND JURy DEMAND
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22
Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. 1331 and 1343, in
23
order to secure protection of, and to redress deprivation of, civil rights secured by Title
2411
42, U.S.C.S. 1983 and the United States Constitution. Venue lies with this court within
the meaning of28 U.S.C.S. 1391, in that one or more of the Defendants reside or are
26
located in the Northern District of California, and most or all ofthe events or omissions
27
giving rise to the claims herein occurred in said District.
28 ..
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL E. ADAMS II
1 702 MARSHALL ST., 11300
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
(650)599-9463 Complamt for Federal CivIl Rights VlOlauon, and Jury Demand
1II FACT ALLEGATIONS
211 I. PlaintiffHosetta Zertuche is an adult female residing in Redwood City, CA.
311 2. Defendant Santa Clara County ("County") is a governmental entity, and its
4 II main offices are located in San Jose, CA.
5 3. At all times herein involved, Defendant James Gleason ("Gleason") was and is
6 an attorney employed by the County as Special Assistant to the County Counsel and as
7 II Director of its Independent Defense Counsel Office ("IDO").
811 4. At all times herein involved, Defendant Sandra Eovino ("Eovino") was
9 II employed by the County as Executive Administrative Manager in the Office of County
10 II Counsel.
11 II 5. At all times herein involved, Defendant Kimberly Maruffi ("Maruffi") was
12 II employed by the County as a supervising paralegal in the Office of County Counsel.
13 II 6. Each Defendant was the agent and employee of every other Defendant, and, in
14 II acting as herein alleged, acted within the course and scope of said agency and
15 II employment.
16 " 7. Each Defendant was a co-conspirator with every other Defendant, and, in acting
17 II as herein alleged, acted pursuant to their conspiracy to implement the improper purposes
18 thereof.
19 8. At all relevant times, the IDO administered, and continues to administer, the
20 II provision of defenses to indigent criminal defendants in the County who could not be
21 II defended by the County Public Defender ("PD") because the PD had determined that
22 II conflicts of interest existed between said criminal defendants ("conflicts defendants") and
23 II other indigent criminal defendants who were being represented by the PD. The IDO
24 II provided defenses to the conflicts defendants by assigning them to private criminal
25 II defense attorneys, by paying such attorneys for representing the conflicts defendants, and
26 II by providing such attorneys with investigation and other support services to assist them as
27 II needed in representing the conflicts defendants.
28
9. At all times herein involved, the IDO was and remains a function ofthe Office
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL E. ADAMS
70Z MARSHALLST.,N300
2
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
(650) 599-9463
Complaint for Federal CiVil Rights VIOlation, and Jury Demand
1 II of County CounseL The Office of County Counsel carried out other functions, such as
2 II providing legal representation to the Public Guardian in conservatorship proceedings, and
311 providing legal representation to sheriff's deputies being sued for alleged misconduct,
4 II that created actual or apparent conflicts of interest for the Office of County Counsel in
5" relation to the activities of the IDO. Accordingly, when the IDO was created, the County
611 adopted a formal policy establishing an ethical wall between the IDO and all other
711 functions of the Office of County Counsel ("Ethical Wall Policy"). The Ethical Wall
8 " Policy bars all non-IDO employees ofthe Office of County Counsel from receiving any
9" information concerning IDO activity, including the funding and development of defenses
10" for any ofthe indigent criminal defendants being represented through the IDO.
1111 10. At all times herein involved, Plaintiff Hosetta Zertuche ("Zertuche") was
12" employed by the County as a legal secretary in the IDO. In said capacity, Zertuche's
13 " duties were to provide legal and administrative support to Gleason, as well as legal
1411 support to IDO staff attorneys. Gleason was Zertuche's work supervisor, and Kimberly
15 " Maruffi ("Maruffi") was her administrative supervisor.
1611 11. Ngoc Lam ("Lam") worked as a paralegal in the IDO from approximately
17 " November, 2009 to April, 2010, during which she worked closely with Gleason on IDO
18 II matters. In or about April, 2010, Lam was reassigned to work as a paralegal in another
19 " unit of the Office of County County that pursued contempt proceedings for nonpayment
20 " of child support, and she remains so assigned. Despite her reassignment, Lam continued
2111 to work closely with Gleason on IDO matters, including administrative tasks of the sort
22" that Gleason had previously assigned to Zertuche.
2311 12. From April, 2010 onward, Zertuche became increasingly concerned that
24" Lam's continued IDO work constituted a significant breach ofthe Ethical Wall Policy,
25 " given Lam's reassignment to the conservatorship unit. Zertuche repeatedly complained to
26 II Gleason, but he was gave no consideration to her complaints.
2711 13. Zertuche nonetheless persisted with her complaints to superiors about Lam's
2811 continued IDO work. In late October, 2010, Zertuche indicated to Lam's supervisor,
LAw OFFICES OF
MICHAEL E. ADAMS
701 MARSHALL ST., 11300
3
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
Complamt for Federal CIvil Rights Violation, and Jury Demand
(650) 599-9463
111 Barbara Dowdy-Stimac, that the Ethical Wall Policy was implicated by the considerable
211 time that Lam was spending in the IDO area. In early November, 2010, Zertuche
311 informed Maruffi, her own administrative supervisor, that Lam's continued IDa work
411 breached the Ethical Wall Policy. Zertuche's complaints immediately resulted in an
511 investigation by the County Administrator, Sandy Eovino ("Eovino"), into Lam's
611 continued IDO work. Eovino interrogated Gleason in late November, 2010 about the IDa
711 work that Lam had been doing following her transfer out ofIDO.
8 II 14. Immediately following his interrogation by Eovino, Gleason retaliated against
9 II Zertuche because she had made the ethical wall complaint concerning his activities with
10 II Lam. Gleason initially did so by treating Zertuche in a consistently angry and harsh
11 II manner that contrasted starkly with the consistently genial manner with which he had
1211 previously interacted with her. Following said interrogation of Gleason, Eovino
13 II compromised her investigation and joined in retaliating against Zertuche because of her
14 II ethical wall complaint. During December, 2010, Gleason and Maruffi further retaliated
15 II against Zertuche by giving her an "improvement needed" rating in the "work relations"
16 II category of the annual job performance evaluation ("JPE") issued to Zertuche on or about
17 II December 20, 2011, and Eovino joined Maruffi in defending and refusing to change the
1811 "improvement needed" rating. Said rating was unprecedented, in that the JPE's issued
1911 during her previous six years of County employment had always given her above-standard
20 II ratings in the ''work relations" category, and had never rated her as less than satisfactory
21 II in any category. The "improvement needed" rating was furthermore unfounded, in that,
22 II as during her previous years of County employment, Zertuche was consistently cordial
23 II and responsive in her relations with other County employees.
2411 15. Zertuche, who suffers from an anxiety disorder, was deeply shaken and upset
2511 by said retaliatory actions. Consequently, on or about December 23,2010, Zertuche took
26 II a medical leave from her employment. During her medical leave, Zertuche was
27 II reassigned from the IDa to a different unit ofthe Office of County Counsel, effective
2811 upon her return to work. Pursuant to instructions from her health care provider, Zertuche
LAw OFFICES OF
MICHAEL E. ADAMS
4
701 MARSHALL ST.,//lOG
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
Complamt for Federal eml Rights VIOlation, and Jury Demand
(650) 599.9463
5
10
15
20
25
1 /I did not return to work until approximately March 21, 2011.
2
311 FIRST CLAIM
411 (Free speech retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983)
II 16. Plaintiffrealleges Paragraphs 1 through 15, hereinabove, of this Complaint,
6 II and each and every allegation thereof as though fully set forth herein.
7 II 17. Plaintiff's complaints alleged in Paragraphs 9 and 10 were made outside the
811 scope of her job duties, were expressed in a courteous and noninflammatory manner, and
9 \I involved as issue of public concern, namely whether the County was operating the IDO in
II a proper and ethical manner.
1111 18. Defendants Gleason, Eovino, and Maruffi retaliated against Plaintiff for her
12/1 expression of the above alleged complaints. Said retaliation included Gleason treating
1311 Plaintiff in a rude and angry manner; Gleason and Maruffi downgrading to "improvement
14 II needed" the rating in her JPE for the "work relations" category, and Eovino ratifying said
II downgraded rating. Gleason, Maruffi, and Eovino, and each of them, possessed final
16 /I policymaking authority to act on behalf ofthe County in exercising control over
17 " Plaintiffs working conditions and evaluating her job performance.
1811 19. As the proximate result thereof, Plaintiff lost earnings while on medical leave.
19 II 20. As the further proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has suffered anxiety,
II humiliation, depression, and emotional distress.
21 II 21. Defendants Gleason, Maruffi, and Eivino acted as hereinabove alleged in
2211 reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights, thereby entitling Plaintiff to awards ofpunitive
2311 damages against each of them.
2411 22. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985, Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable attorney's
fees.
26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
2711 1. For general and special damages against all Defendants in the sum of
2811 $150,000.00.
LAw OFFICES 0,
MICHA EL E. ADAMS
702 MARSHALL ST., 1t300
5
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
(650) 5999463
Complamt for Feaeral CIVil Rights VIOlatlon, and Jury Demand
5
10
15
20
25
1 II 2. For punitive damages against Defendants Gleason, Maruffl, Eovino, and each
211 of them, in the sum of $300,000.00.
3 II 3. For reasonable attorney's fees.
4 4. For costs of suit.
5. For such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
/
6" DATED: July 27,2011
7
8
9 Attorney for Plaintiff
HOSETTA ZERTUCHE
11
12" JURY DEMAND
13 1\ Plaintiff hereby demands a trial jy jury as to all issues raised in the complaint.
1411 DATED: July 27, 2011
~
16
Attorney for Plaintiff
17 HOSETTA ZERTUCHE
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
LAw OFFICES OF
MICHAEL E. ADAMS
702 MARSHALL ST., 11300
6
REDWOOD CITV CA 94063
(650) 5999463
Complaint for Federal Civtl Rights VIolation, and Jury Demand
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORIGINAL FiLED
HOSETTA ZERTUCHE,
Plaintiff (s),
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, ET AL,
Defendant( s).
JUL 272011
Richard W. Wleklng
Olerk. U.S. Distriot Court
Northem District of California
No. C 11-03691 HRL
San Jose
ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND ADR DEADLINES
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is assigned to the Honorable Howard R. Lloyd.
When serving the complaint or notice of removal, the plaintiff or removing defendant must serve on all
other parties a copy of this order, the Notice of Assignment of Case to a United States
Magistrate Judge for Trial, and all other documents specified in Civil Local Rule 4-2. Counsel must
comply with the case schedule listed below unless the Court otherwise orders.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is assigned to the Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Multi-Option Program governed by ADR Local Rule 3. Counsel and clients shall familiarize
themselves with that rule and with the material entitled "Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern
District of California" on the Court ADR Internet site at www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov.Alimited
number of printed copies are available from the Clerk's Office for parties in cases not subject to the
court's Electronic Case Filing program (ECF).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff or removing defendant serve upon all parties
the brochure entitled "Consenting To A Magistrate Judge's Jurisdiction In The Northern
District Of California," additional copies of which can be downloaded from the following
Internet site: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov.
CASE SCHEDULE -ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRAM
Date Event Governing Rule
7/2712011 Complaint filed
9/20/2011 *Last day to: FRCivP 26(f) & ADR
meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early L.R.3-S
settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan
file ADR Certification signed by Parties and Counsel Civil L.R. 16-8 (b) &
(form available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) ADR L.R. 3-S(b}
file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Civil L.R. 16-8 (c) &
Need for ADR Phone Conference (form available at ADR L.R. 3-S(b} &
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) {Q}
10/4/2011 Last day to file Rule 26(t) Report, complete initial
disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(t) Report and file
Case Management Statement per attached Standing Order
re Contents of Joint Case Management Statement (also
available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov)
FRCivP 26(a) (I)
Civil L.R. 16-9
1011112011 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Civil L.R. 16-10
(CMC) in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor SJ at 1 :30 PM
*If the Initial Case Management Conference is continued, the other deadlines are continued
accordingly.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOWARD R. LLOYD
STANDING ORDER RE: INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
1. In cases that are randomly assigned to Judge Lloyd for all purposes, the parties are
requested to file their written consent to the assignment of a U.S. Magistrate Judge
for all purposes, or their written declination of consent, as soon as possible.
2. The civil motion calendar is heard on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. The criminal motion
calendar is heard on Thursdays at 9:30 a.m. Motions may be noticed for hearing
pursuant to Civil L.R. 7. Counsel need not reserve a hearing date in advance for civil
motions, although noticed dates may be reset as the Court's calendar requires.
HOWEVER, do not notice a motion over a civil discovery dispute. Instead, follow this
court's "Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes."
3. Parties with questions regarding scheduling (excluding settlement conferences)
should contact Judge Lloyd's Administrative Law Clerk at (408) 535-5411.
4. A Case Management Conference will be held on the date and time specified in the
Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Courtroom 2, United States
Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. This conference may be
continued only by Court Order pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2{e). Parties may not
stipulate to continue a Case Management Conference without Court approval.
5. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-9, no later than seven (7) days before the Case
Management Conference, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management
Statement. For the required format and contents of this filing, follow the "Standing
Order for All Judges of the Northem District of California: Contents of Joint Case
Management Statement." If preparation of a joint statement would cause undue
hardship, the parties may serve and file separate statements, which shall include a
description of the undue hardship.
6. Plaintiff or removing Defendant shall serve a copy of this Standing Order on all
parties to this action and on all parties subsequently joined, in accordance with
Fed.R.Civ.P 4 and 5. Following service, Plaintiff shall file a certificate of service, in
accordance with Civil L.R. 5-6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2002
Amended February 26, 2007
Amended June 3, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOWARD R. LLOYD
STANDING ORDER RE: CIVIL DISCOVERY DISPUTES
1. Effect of Delay on Discovery Disputes.
The parties and counsel are cautioned not to allow discovery disagreements to drag
on unresolved until some important looming deadline forces them into action. Because of
the press of its other business, the court may not be able to give the dispute its attention
with the same celerity that some or all of the parties think is necessary.
2. Resolving Discovery Disputes
In order for this court to efficiently and flexibly respond to discovery disputes, and
accounting both for (1) parties' and counsels' obligation to diligently strive to resolve such
disputes without court involvement and (2) the limitations on available judicial resources:
effective immediately this court adopts a new procedure for resolving discovery disputes.
A. Absent leave of court, formal noticed discovery motions may no longer be
filed and, if filed contrary to this order, will not be heard.
B. Instead, parties (and non-parties involved in a discovery dispute) will first
use the customary convenient means of communication - telephone, e-mail,
correspondence, person to person talks between members of opposing litigation teams
to try to reach agreement.
C. If that fails to lead to complete agreement, then LEAD COUNSEL (and
any unrepresented person). accompanied by anyone else whose presence is needed to
fully explore resolution, shall meet IN PERSON for as long as and as often as is needed
to reach full agreement.
i. Unjustified delay in arranging the meeting, especially where the
dispute is time sensitive, or refusal to attend or to partiCipate meaningfully will be grounds
for sanctions and/or for entry of an order in favor of the other side. Except in extreme
circumstances, excuses such as press of business, inconvenience, or cost will not suffice.
ii. Hopefully, the parties can agree on a site for the in-person meeting
of lead counsel. The most sensible way would probably be for the party advancing the
dispute to pick the place for the first meeting, the other party pick the site for the second,
and alternating thereafter. If the parties cannot agree, then the court requires lead counsel
meet at a location approximately half way between their offices.
D. If the meeting(s) between lead counsel do not resolve the dispute, then
within 5 business days after conclusion of the session(s) (or, 5 days after reaching impasse
as to a particular issue) the parties shall file on pleading paper a "Discovery Dispute Joint
Report #_" ("Joint Report"). In no event maya Joint Report be fried later than 7 days
after the discovery cut-off date(s), as prescribed in Civif loR. 37-3. As usual, a chambers
copy should also be submitted.
i. The Joint Report's cover page will contain: the case caption; a one
sentence identification of the issue it covers; the date, place, and length of time of the jOint
meeting; the close of discovery and any other date that is relevant; and the attestations of
lead counsel that they complied with this Standing Order.
ii. To avoid needless complexity and unwieldiness, the Joint Report
should deal with only one issue (or, at most, a few inextricably related issues).
iii. The Joint Report, including the cover page, shall not exceed 11
pages. It should describe the dispute and the facts essential to understanding it. Then, in
a format that allows ready comparison, it should give each party's position (with brief
citation to important authority), and - finally - each party's final and "most reasonable"
proposal for how the court should decide.
iv. The only exhibit permitted to the Joint Report is an exact copy of
the discovery request(s) in issue and the response(s) (if any) to it (i.e.: requests for
documents, interrogatories, privilege log, non-party subpoena, etc.) If it consists of more
than just a few pages, the exhibit shall be indexed.
v. A single lead-counsel-in-person session may produce more than
one Joint Report, but the court would look with disfavor on any attempt to use multiple Joint
Reports to skirt the page limitation.
vi. Unjustified delay or refusal to participate meaningfully in the
preparation of the Joint Report is grounds for imposition of sanctions or entry of an order
sought by the other side.
E. Upon receipt of the Joint Report, the court will decide what further
proceedings, if any, are appropriate. If the issue is clearly presented and ripe for decision,
it may simply issue a ruling. Alternatively, other options include: scheduling a telephone
conference, calling for further briefing, or, rarely, holding a hearing.
F. Any party seeking an award of attorney fees or other expenses in
connection with a discovery dispute shall file a noticed motion pursuant to the Northern
District Local Rules. It would ordinarily be presumptuous to file such a motion before the
court has ruled on the dispute.
G. When the parties have become, or expect to become, engaged in a
succession of discovery disputes or otherwise require the ongoing assistance of a neutral
decision maker, the court recommends they consider appointment of a Special Master.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1::
U
Q
=
"5
'"
... <E
~ :.:::
C ~
... 0
fI.l ...
"5
~ . ~
fI.l Cl
QJ 5
~ "
... 0
r;,nZ
"0-5
QJ ...
...

&!
=
~ : ~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CASE
TO A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR TRIAL
Pursuant to General Order 44, the Assignment Plan of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, this case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge
Howard R. Lloyd.
Pursuant to Title 28 U.S. C. 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge
may conduct all proceedings in the case. Attached is a form to complete if you consent to proceed
before the assigned magistrate judge and a form to complete if you decline to proceed before the
assigned magistrate judge. Electronic versions of both forms are also available at the Court's
Internet site: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov.Click on Forms-Civil. A party is free to withhold
consent without adverse consequences. If a party declines to consent, the case will be randomly
reassigned to a district judge and a case management conference will be scheduled on the district
judge's calendar as close as possible to the date presently scheduled before the magistrate judge.
You must file your consent or declination by the deadline for filing the initial case
management statement.
The plaintiff or removing party shall serve a copy of this notice and all attachments upon all
other parties in the action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 5.
FOR THE COURT,
RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK
~ ~
By: Deputy Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C
Plaintiff(s), CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
v.
Defendant( s).
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. Section 636(c), the undersigned party
hereby voluntarily consents to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further
proceedings in the case, including trial, and order the entry of a final judgment. Appeal from the
judgment shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dated:
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -
Signature
Counsel for
- ; : : - - - - - . c - - - ~ . . . . . . , . . . - -
(Plaintiff, Defendant or indicatei'pro sel!)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C
Plaintiff( s), DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE
A MAGISTRATE JUDGE
v. AND
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant( s).
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The undersigned party hereby declines to consent to the assignment of this case to a United
States Magistrate Judge for trial and disposition and hereby requests the reassignment of this case to
a United States District Judge.
..
Dated:
Signature______"_______
Counsel for
~ - . - c - - ~ - . . ~ _ . . _ - ~ -
(Plaintiff, Defendant, or indicate "pro se")
STANDING ORDER FOR ALL JUDGES OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
CONTENTS OF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Commencing March 1,2007, aU judges of the Northern District of California will require the
identical infonnation in Joint Case Management Statements filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule
16-9. The parties must include the following infonnation in their statement which, except in
unusually complex cases, should not exceed ten pages:
1. Jurisdiction and Service: The basis for the court's subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiff's claims and defendant's counterclaims, whether any issues exist regarding personal
jurisdiction or venue, whether any parties remain to be served, and, if any parties remain to be
served, a proposed deadline for service.
2. Facts: A brief chronology ofthe facts and a statement of the principal factual
issues in dispute.
3. Legal Issues: A brief statement, without extended legal argument, of the disputed points
oflaw, including reference to specific statutes and decisions.
4. Motions: All prior and pending motions, their current status, and any anticipated motions.
5. Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or defenses are expected to
be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending the pleadings.
6. Evidence Preservation: Steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably
evident in this action, including interdiction of any document-destruction program and any
ongoing erasures of e-mails, voice mails, and other electronically-recorded material.
7. Disclosures: Whether there has been full and timely compliance with the initial disclosure
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and a description of the disclosures made.
8. Discovery: Discovery taken to date, if any, the scope of anticipated discovery, any
proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, and a proposed discovery plan
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).
9. Class Actions: If a class action, a proposal for how and when the class will be certified.
10. Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this
court, or before another court or administrative body.
II. Relief: All relief sought through complaint or counterclaim, including the amount of any
-1
damages sought and a description of the bases on which damages are calculated. In addition, any
party from whom damages are sought must describe the bases on which it contends damages
should be calculated if liability is established.
12. Settlement and ADR: Prospects for settlement, ADR efforts to date, and a specific ADR
plan for the case, including compliance with ADR L.R. 3-5 and a description of key discovery or
motions necessary to position the parties to negotiate a resolution.
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes: Whether all parties will consent to have a
magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry ofjudgment.
14. Other References: Whether the case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a
special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
15. Narrowing ofIssues: Issues that can be narrowed by agreement or by motion, suggestions
to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial (e.g., through summaries or stipulated facts), and
any request to bifurcate issues, claims, or defenses.
16. Expedited Schedule: Whether this is the type of case that can be handled on an expedited
basis with streamlined procedures.
17. Scheduling: Proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing of
dispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial.
18. Trial: Whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the court and the expected length of
the trial.
19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: Whether each party has filed the
"Certification of Interested Entities or Persons" required by Civil Local Rule 3-16. In addition,
each party must restate in the case management statement the contents of its certification by
identifying any persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other
entities known by the party to have either: (i) a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
20. Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition ofthis
matter.
-2
----------------
I
2
3
4
5
611 Case No.
7
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
STANDING ORDER REGARDING
CASE MANAGEMENT IN CIVIL CASES
10 II This order sets forth requirements for initial case management in all civil matters assigned to
t
11 District Judges Ronald M. Whyte, Jeremy Fogel, Lucy H. Koh, and Edward J. Davila, and
6
u 12 Magistrate Judges Howard R. Lloyd and Paul S. Grewal. All papers filed must include the case
...... @
u -.;
.... u
13 number of the action followed by the initials of the assigned district judge or magistrate judge and, if
'0
til
.c .S:!
1411 applicable, the initials of the magistrate judge to whom the action is referred for discovery or other

til 0
E 15 II pretrial activity.
--
S ..

16 \I Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Standing Order on all parties to this action and on all
"0 ,s
l5
17 II parties subsequently joined, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and 5. Following service, plaintiff
."", u.
;5
18 II shall file a certificate of service in accordance with Civil L.R. 5-6(a).
19 II All disclosure or discovery disputes in cases assigned to district judges are referred to the
201\ assigned magistrate judge for determination pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Magistrate judges
2111 themselves handle disclosure and discovery disputes in the cases assigned to them.
2211 Before select1ng a hearing-dare-fer a metien- befof8 judges of the San Jose
23 II Division, counsel must confer with opposing counsel to determine that the proposed hearing date
24 II will not cause undue prejudice.
25 II Civil motions under Civil L.R. 7-2 in cases assigned to Judge Whyte may be noticed for
26 II hearing on any Friday at 9:00 a.m.
2711 Civil motions under Civil L.R. 7-2 in cases assigned to Judge Fogel may be noticed for
28 II hearing only after contacting Judge Fogel's administrative law clerk, Christian Delaney, at
408-535-5426 and obtaining an available date.
111 Civil motions under Civil L.R. 7-2 in cases assigned to Judge Koh may be noticed for
2 II hearing only after contacting Judge Koh's Courtroom Deputy, Martha Parker Brown, at 408-535
3 II 5346 and obtaining an available date.
41\ Civil motions under Civil L.R 7-2 in cases assigned to Judge Davila may be noticed for
5 \I hearing only after contacting Judge Davila's Courtroom Deputy, Elizabeth Garcia, at 408-535-5356.
61\ Civil motions under Civil L.R 7-2 in cases assigned to Magistrate Judge Lloyd may be
7 noticed for hearing on any Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.
8 Civil motions under Civil L.R 7-2 in cases assigned to Magistrate Judge Grewal may be
9 noticed for hearing on any Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.
10 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and 26 and Civil L.R. 16-10(a), a Case Management Conference
1:
11 \I will be held on at , at the United States
5 ..
'8 1211 Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. This conference may be continued only by
U
....
.... ~
Co.l ..
...... U 1311 court order pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2(e). Parties may not stipulate to continue a Case Management
~ .....
..... 0
. ~ .!l
1411 Conference without court approval.
~ .S
r;I.l 0
Q,I s
15\1 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-3, in advance of the Case Management Conference, counsel shall
1U ~
..... !S
rn
Z
161\ confer with their respective clients and opposing counsel for the purposes specified in Fed.RCiv.P.
~
"0
~ !S
1711 26(f), Civil L.R. 16-8 and 16-9, and in patent cases, Patent L.R. 3-1 through 3-6. A meaningful meet
...... Il.o
~
1811 and confer process prior to the Case Management Conference and good faith compliance with the
191\ requirements of this Order are essential elements of effective case management. Failure to meet and
20 II confer, to be prepared for the Case Management Conference or to file a Joint Case Management
2111 Conference Statement may result in sanctions. Parties may, but are not required, to attend the Case
22fl Management Conference.
23 II In all "E-filing" cases when filing papers in connection with any motion for determination by
24 II a judge, the parties shall, in addition to filing papers electronically, lodge with chambers a printed
2511 copy of the papers by the close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed
2611 electronically. These printed copies shall be marked "Chambers Copy" and shall be submitted to the
2711 Clerk's Office, in an envelope clearly marked with the Judge's name, case number and "E-filing
28
2
5
10
15
20
25
111 Chambers Copy." Parties shall not file a paper copy of any document with the Clerk's Office that
2 \I has already been filed electronically.
3
4
6
7
8
9
1:
11
::s
Q -iii
12
U ...
.g
..... ::::
(,) '"
... u 13
"'" .....
..... 0

14

!Il E

..... 0
rJ)Z
.., 16
"CI .;;
\'l) 5
u..
17
;;;:J =
18
19
21

23
24
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 25, 2011

RonaldM .
United .
lSt11etre
i::&t/J.
_ . oh LucyH
United States District Judge

Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge
SAN JOSE DIVISION
2811 STANDING ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT IN CIVIL CASES