McCoy v. City of Vallejo

City Attorney, State Bar No. 140001 RANDY J. RISNER Chief Assistant City Attorney, State Bar No. 172552 KATELYN M. KNIGHT Assistant City Attorney, State Bar No. 264573 CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall Santa Clara Street Vallejo, California 94590 Telephone: (707) 648-4545 Facsimile: (707) 648-4687 Email: [email protected] MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551 [email protected] ANDREW C. RAWCLIFFE, State Bar No. 259224 [email protected] NIKHIL S. DAMLE, State Bar No. 297350 [email protected] COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC 420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140 Grass Valley, California 95945-5091 Telephone: (530) 432-7357 Facsimile: (530) 432-7356 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF VALLEJO, ANDREW BIDOU, GREG NYHOFF, MARK THOMPSON, BRYAN GLICK, ANTHONY ROMERO-CANO, COLIN EATON, JORDON PATZER, STEVEN DARDEN, AND KYLE WYLIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KORI MCCOY, etc., et al., CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-01191-JAM-CKD

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION ON DISMISSAL OF 21 v. PLAINTIFFS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BANE ACT CLAIMS UNDER THE FIFTH CITY OF VALLEJO, etc., et al., CAUSE OF ACTION

23 Complaint Filed: June 27, 2019 Defendants. SAC Filed: March 26, 2021 24 Trial Date: August 29, 2022 McCoy, Shawnmell Mitchell, Marquita McCoy, and Barbara Dorsey (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Vallejo, Andrew Bidou, Mark Thompson, Bryan Glick, Anthony Romero-Cano, Colin Eaton, Jordon Patzer, Steven Darden, Kyle Wylie and Ryan McMahon (“Defendants”1), referred to collectively as the “Parties,” by and through their designated counsel, that: 6 WHEREAS, on September 9, 2021, the Parties held a meet and confer in compliance with section III of the Order re Filing Requirements, ECF No. 4-2, in anticipation of Defendants moving under Rule 12(c) to dismiss various causes of action pleaded in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint’s (“SAC”) for their failure to state a claim.

10 WHEREAS, the Parties agreed during that meet and confer that Plaintiffs Kori McCoy, Marc McCoy, Louis McCoy, Shawnmell Mitchell, Marquita McCoy, and Barbara Dorsey cannot pursue individual capacity claims under the California Civil Code section 52.1 (Bane Act). Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.App.4th 141, 144–145 (1995) (BART) 14 WHEREAS, the Parties agreed that Plaintiffs Kori McCoy, Marc McCoy, Louis McCoy, Shawnmell Mitchell, and Barbara Dorsey2 would voluntarily dismiss with prejudice their Bane Act claims (Cal. Civ. Code, § 52.1), which were brought in their individual capacity under the Fifth Cause of Action in the SAC and will not further pursue this claim for money, damages or penalties on their own behalf, except those sought as a successor-interest to decedent Willie McCoy.

19 NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, through their undersigned counsel below, hereby stipulate and agree: 21 1. Plaintiffs Kori McCoy’s, Marc McCoy’s, Louis McCoy’s, Shawnmell Mitchell’s, and 22 Barbara Dorsey’s state law claims for Bane Act violations (Cal. Civ. Code, § 52.1), which 23 are brought in their individual capacity, under the Fifth Cause of Action in Plaintiffs’ 24 Second Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

1 Defendant Ryan McMahon is represented separately by the law firm Angelo, Killday and Kilduff.

28 2 Plaintiff Marquita McCoy’s Bane Act claim was previously dismissed by stipulation for failure to file a timely government claim for damages. See Dkt. No. 97. /s/ Andrew C. Rawcliffe 3 ANDREW C. RAWCLIFFE Attorneys for Defendants 4 City of Vallejo, Andrew Bidou, Greg Nyhoff, Mark Thompson, Bryan Glick, Anthony 5 Romero-Cano, Colin Eaton, Jordon Patzer, Steven Darden, and Kyle Wylie

8 DATED: November 1, 2021 /s/ Derick E. Konz 10 DERICK E. KONZ Attorneys for Defendant Ryan McMahon DATED: November 1, 2021

/s/ Patrick M. Buelna PATRICK M. BUELNA 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 21 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE