1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD JOHNSON, Case No. 20-cv-07129-SK

8 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR 9 v. HEARING

10 CITY OF PITTSBURG,

11 Defendant.

12 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE 13 OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 5, 2021 14 AT 9:30 A.M. The Court intends to address the questions below at the hearing. If, in response to 15 a question in this notice, any party intends to rely on authorities not previously cited to the Court, 16 that party is ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities by no later 17 than March 29, 2021. Moreover, the Court advises the parties that it will not accept written 18 answers to this question. 19 The parties shall be prepared to address the following questions at the hearing: 20 1. California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 21 1983 claims. Butler v. Nat’l Community Renaissance of California,

, 22 1198 (9th Cir. 2014);

. Whether the limitations period 23 may be tolled is also determined by California law, unless it is inconsistent with 24 federal law. Butler,

. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of 25 California enacted Emergency Rule 9 due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. 26 Emergency Rule 9 suspends from “April 6, 2020, until October 1, the statutes of 27 limitation and repose for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days.” See Judicial 1 Defendants dispute that Emergency Rule 9 applies to Plaintiff's proposed claims 2 against arresting officer Kyle Dickson? If so, on what basis? 3 2. If the tolling pursuant to Emergency Rule 9 applies, do Defendants dispute that 4 Plaintiffs proposed claims would be timely? 5 3. As the Supreme Court made clear “[w]hen the original complaint and the plaintiffs 6 conduct compel the conclusion that the failure to name the prospective defendant in 7 the original complaint was the result of a fully informed decision as opposed to a 8 mistake concerning the proper defendant’s identity, the requirements of Rule 9 15(c)(1)(C)Gi) are not met.” Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A.,

, 552 10 (2010). Does Plaintiff contend that he made a mistake regarding the arresting 11 officer’s identity? Ifso, what mistake? 2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 || Dated: March 22, 2021 ° :

SALLIE KIM 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28