Free Reply to Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 49

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
KIMON MANOLIUS - 154971
2 kmanoliustghansonbridgett.com

JULIA H. VEIT - 209207
3 jveittghansonbridgett.com

DENA M. DUTHOY - 239900
4 dduthoytghansonbridgett.com

425 Market Street, 26th Floor
5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 6 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
7 Attomeys for Defendant

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

8 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 JEROME L. GRIMES,

No. CV08-1241 CW
DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

13

Plaintif,
v.

14

15 ROBERT SCHREADER; CAL TRAIN,

Date: (under submission per Clerk's Order

16 Defendants.
17 18 19

of July 10, 2008)
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

Plaintiff Jerome Grimes' Opposition mistakenly contends that this Court should

20
21

deny Defendant PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (erroneously sued as "Caltrain")'s motion for judgment on the pleadings because it is premature and

22

because Plaintiff did not identify "Terrorism, as a, Jurisdiction" (sic). Plaintiff's
Opposition does nothing to refute the legal insufficiency of his claims and this Court
should enter judgment in favor of Defendant as a matter of law.

23
24 25 26 27 28

Specifically, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(c) expressly authorizes

judgment on the pleadings where a plaintiff's well-pled allegations do not entitle him to

the relief he seeks. See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 475 (1999). The
deficiencies of Plaintiff's Complaint are fundamental and many. No further development
- 1 -

DEFENDANT'S REPL YIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; CASE NO. CV 08-1241 CW

1559456.1

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 49

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 of his case could convert his legally unsound claims into tenable ones. Further, whether

2 the Complaint violates the Court's December 9, 2005 Pre-Filing Order or not, its
3 allegations of various acts of terror, kidnapping, entrapment, and the like, even where

4 remotely discernable, do not state any legally cognizable claim for relief against
5 Defendant.

1 If anything, Plaintiff's admission in his Opposition that his conduct of

6 December 26, 2007 "lead (sic) to the misdemeanor conviction" affirms that Plaintiff was

7 not ejected from theCaltrain in violation of his civil rights. (See, Opposition To The, (sic)
8 Defendants' Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings, filed July 14, 2008, p. 3 lines 28 to
9 p. 4 line 2.) Thus, Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from asserting his claims against

10 Defendant, which all apparently arise from the allegation that he was unlawfully ejected

11 from Caltrain despite his lawful conduct. See, e.g., Pease v. Pease (1988) 201 Cal. App.
12 3d 29, 32 (application of collateral estoppel to issues determined in previous criminal

13 prosecution).
14 For all the reasons set forth herein and in Defendant's moving papers, this Court
15 should enter judgment in favor of defendant pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil .

16 Procedure, Rule 12(c).
17
18
19 DATED: July21, 2008
Respectlly submitted,

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

20
21

BY:~~~
DENA M. D THOY
Attomeys for Defendant PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

22

23 24
25

26
27
1 Defendant does not understand Plaintiffs reliance on allegations made against Mr. Reese Foy of Walgreen's in opposition to this motion, which does not implicate or

28

involve either Mr. Foy or Walgreen's in any way.
-2DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; CASE NO. CV 08-1241 CW
1559456.1

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 49

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Lorraine V. Mole, declare that i am a resident of the State of California. i am

over the age of 18 years and not a party to the action entitled Jerome L. Grimes v. Robert 3 Schreader; Caltrain; Case No. CV 08-1241 CW that my business address is 425 Market Street,

26th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105. On July 21,2008, i served a true and accurate
4 copy of the document(s) entitled:

5 DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS;
6 on the part(ies) in this action by placing said copy(ies) in a sealed envelope, each addressed

to the last address(es) given by the party(ies) as follows:
7

Jerome L. Grimes 8 263 Vernon Street

San Francisco, CA 94132
9

Plaintiff In Pro Per
10
11

D

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

(By First Class Mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.) I am readily familiar with (firm name)'s practices for collecting and processing documents for mailing with United States Postal Service. Following these ordinary business practices, i placed the above referenced sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailng with the United States Postal Service on the date listed

herein at 425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105. The
above referenced sealed envelope(s) will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the date listed herein in the ordinary course of business.

~
D

(By Express Mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.) i deposited each sealed envelope, with the postage prepaid, to be delivered via UPS to the party(ies) so designated on the service list.

20
21

(By Hand pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b).) i directed each sealed envelope to the party(ies) so designated on the service list to be delivered by courier, Specialized Legal, this date. A copy of the affidavit/declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the courier, shall be filedllodged with the court under separate cover.
i declare that i am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at

22 23

whose direction the service was made.

24
25

~ V, Yl~
Lorraine V. Mole
- 1 -

26
27 28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1564480.1