Alejandre v. County of San Joaquin

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ----oo0oo---- CINDY M. ALEJANDRE, et. al., No. 2:19-cv-00233-WBS-KJN 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et. al., 13 Defendants.

15 ----oo0oo---- 16 The court requires further oral arguments on defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claim under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. The arguments shall include an explanation of how defendants’ conduct amounted to threats, intimidation, or coercion; whether plaintiffs’ claim under the Tom Bane Act is brought as a wrongful death action or a survivors’ action (See 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 damages the decedent allegedly incurred as a result of defendants’ conduct before his death; and if it is brought as a wrongful death action whether such actions can be brought under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. See Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. ee RII IO OE ERIE NRE ROI IO IERIE IEE OE ESO v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. App. 4th 141, 144 (1st Dist. 1995) (“The Bane Act is simply not a wrongful death provision....it is limited to plaintiffs who themselves have been the subject of violence or threats.”); Bresaz v. County of Santa Clara, 2015 WL 5 1230316. *8 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (holding that a party lacks standing to bring a claim under the Tom Bane Act when that party does not claim to have personally suffered a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.) The parties should additionally be prepared 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