Alejandre v. County of San Joaquin ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ----oo0oo---- 8 9 CINDY M. ALEJANDRE, et. al., No. 2:19-cv-00233-WBS-KJN 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER 12 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et. al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 ----oo0oo---- 16 The court requires further oral arguments on 17 defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to 18 plaintiffs’ claim under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. 19 Code § 52.1. The arguments shall include an explanation of how 20 defendants’ conduct amounted to threats, intimidation, or 21 coercion; whether plaintiffs’ claim under the Tom Bane Act is 22 brought as a wrongful death action or a survivors’ action (See 23 Medrano v. Kern County Sheriff’s Officer, 921 F. Supp. 2d 1009 24 (E.D. Cal. 2013); if it is brought as a survivors’ action what 25 damages the decedent allegedly incurred as a result of 26 defendants’ conduct before his death; and if it is brought as a 27 wrongful death action whether such actions can be brought under 28 the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. See Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. ee RII IO OE ERIE NRE ROI IO IERIE IEE OE ESO 1 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. App. 4th 141, 144 (1st Dist. 1995) 2 (“The Bane Act is simply not a wrongful death provision....it is 3 limited to plaintiffs who themselves have been the subject of 4 violence or threats.”); Bresaz v. County of Santa Clara, 2015 WL 5 1230316. *8 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (holding that a party lacks standing 6 to bring a claim under the Tom Bane Act when that party does not 7 claim to have personally suffered a violation of a constitutional 8 or statutory right.) The parties should additionally be prepared 9 to provide examples of any wrongful death actions that have been 10 brought under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. 11 The court will hear such arguments by Zoom at 10:00 12 a.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 2021. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: April 8, 2021 eh tle Ad. b€ 15 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28