Free Response ( Non Motion ) - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 32

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
KIMON MANOLIUS -154971
2 kmanolius~hansonbridgett.com

JULIA H. VEIT - 209207
3 jveit~hansonbridgett.com

DENA M. DUTHOY - 239900
4 dduthoy~hansonbridgett.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,

13 Plaintif, 14 v.
15 ROBERT SCHREADER; CAL TRAIN,

No. CV 08-1241 MMC

RESPONSE TO JUNE 5, 2008 ORDER OF

REFERRAL

16 Defendants.
17

18 Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Northem District of Califomia's Civil
19 Local Rule ("ND Cal Civil L.R.") 3-12(c), defendant PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS

20 BOARD erroneously sued as CAL TRAIN ("JPB") submit this response in support of the Hon.
21 Judge Maxine M. Chesney's June 5, 2008 Order of Referral for consideration of whether the

22 below cases are related:
23 1. In re cases filed by Jerome L. Grimes, Case No. No. 05-80244 CW, filed October 28,

24 2005.
25 2. Jerome L. Grimes v. Robert Schreader, Caltrain, Case No. CV 08-0162 CW, filed

26 January 11, 2008;

27 3. Jerome L. Grimes v. RobertSchreader, Caltrain, Case No. CV 08-1241 MMC,

28 removed from San Mateo Superior Court on March 3, 2008.
- 1 -

RESPONSE TO ORDER OF REFERRAL; CASE NO. CV 08-0162

1429831.1

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 32

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 2 of 4

1

The above-reference cases meet the qualifcations setforth in ND Cal Civil L.R. 3-12(a)

2 3

insofar as both conæm substantially the same parties and events, and, if the cases are
conducted before diferent judges, there wil be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and a
likely risk of conflicting rulings.

4
5

With respect to the cases listed in items 2 and 3 above,. both cases seek the identical relief

6 7
8 9

against the same parties. (See, pp. 5-6 of Complaint in Case No. CV 08-0162 CW; pp. 5-6 of

Complaint in Case No. CV 08-1241 MMC.) Both cases involve an event purportedly occurrng

Deæmber 26, 2007, which plaintif alleges constituted an "Abuse Of Authori.. .In Violation Of

The Plaintifs, (Sic) Rights To Libert, Constitutional Rights Gl1aranteed By The 6th Amendment,
Of The, (Sic) U.S. Constitution..." Both Complaints allege the defendants' conduct"... is the, 'cold
blooded modus operandi, of the, (sic) Post-09/11/01, covert terror network.'" (See, e.g., p. 5 of

10
11

12 13 14

Complaint in Case No. CV 08-0162 CW; p. 5 of Complaint in Case No. CV 08-1241 MMC.)
Indeed, the operative Complaints filed in the above two actions are virtually identical but for a few

handwritten markings. Accrdingly, because the actions involve the exact same parties, events,
and issues, the cases should be conducted before the same judge to avoid an unduly
burdensome duplication of labor and/or conflicting rulings.

15
16

17
18 19

With respect to the case listed in item 1 above, the Pre-Filing Order filed in that matter

states:
"The First, if the complaint is related to any of the following subject matters: (1) a diversifed group of individuals who commit acts of terror against Mr. Grimes, his family and other citizens; (2) an injunction against the defendants, to prevent them from kidnapping,

20
21

framing, falsely imprisoning or otherwise terrorizing Mr.
defendants to be subjected to a lie detector

22

23 24 25 26
27

test (4) covert terrorism, it wil not be filed unless it presents conizable claims
that are not based on merely conclusory allegations. Second, no

Grimes, his family, and other citizens; (3) a court order for the

other complaints filed by Mr. Grimes while he is not

. incarcerated or detained wil be filed unles they contain
intellgible factual allegations and claims for relief." (Pre-Filing Order, In re cases filed by Jerome L Grimes, No. 05-80244 CW, filed Deæmber9, 2005, 2:1-13 (Emph. added).)
Both the Complaints in items 2 and 3 listed above allege the defendants' conduct"... is
the, 'cold blooded modus operandi, of

the, (sic) Post-09/11/01, covert terror network.'" (See, e.g.,

28
-2RESPONSE TO ORDER OF REFERRAL; CASE NO. CV 08-0162
1429831.1

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 32

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 p. 5 of Complaint in Case No. CV 08-0162 CW; p. 5 of Complaint in Case No. CV 08-1241

2 MMC.) Further, both involve the purported kidnapping, false imprisonment, or the terrorizing of

3 Mr. Grimes. (Id.) Both seek an order firing a defendant from his employment "in memory of the,
4 March 11,2004, Madrid, Spain, Covert Terror Victims," as well as $1 millon in punitive damages.
5 . (See, p. 5 of Complaint in Case No. CV 08-1241 MMC, (punctuation and emphasis in original)

6 and p. 5 of Complaint in Case No. CV 08-0162 CW.) Accrdingly, because all three actions
7 involve pro per plaintif Grimes' allegations of "terror," "kidnapping," and "false imprisonment," and'

8 thus, also involve similar issues and events, the cases should be conducted before the same

9 judge to avoid an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and/or conflicting rulings.
10 Shortly after the removal of Case No. CV 08-1241 WDB from San Mateo Superior Court,

11 JPB discovered Case No. CV 08-0162 CW in a docket search of the Northem District of
12 Califomia's online files. (Declaration of Dena M. Duthoy, 1(3.) JBP was not served in connection

13 with, nor did it appear in, Case No. CV 08-0162 CWo (ld.,1(.) In accrdanæ with ND Cal Civil

14 L. R. 7-11, JPB requested that plaintif stipulate that the above-reference cases are related and
15 that plaintif join in this motion. Plaintif responded to this request by phone and indicated that he
16 had no objection to this motion and that he agreed that the cases are related. (Id., 1(5.) However,

17 priorto the filing of JPB's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related,
18 JPB discovered that Case No. CV 08-162 CW had been closed; and thus, did not file its motion

19 as it believed this related case was no longer pending. (ld.,1(6.)

20 Nonetheless, JPB respecully requests the Court consider the cases named in items 1, 2,
21 and 3herein related pursuanttoND Cal Civil L.R. 3-12(a) and the June 5,2008 Order of Referral
22 issued by Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney.

23 DATED: June 6, 2008
24 25

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

By: ~~'~
Attorneys for Defendant

DENA M. DUTH Y .
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT

26
27 28

POWERS BOARD

- 3RESPONSE TO ORDER OFREFERRAL; CASE NO. CV 08-0162
1429831.1

Case 4:08-cv-01241-CW

Document 32

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Lorraine V. Mole, declare that I am a resident of the State of California. 1 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 WDB that my business address is 425 Market Street,

26th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105. On June 6, 2008, i served a true and accurate
4 copy of the document(s) entitled:

5 Response to June 5,2008 Order of Referral;
6 Declaration of Dena M. Duthoy in Support of Response to Order of Referral
7 on the party(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:
8

Jerome L. Grimes 9 263 Vernon Street

San Francisco, CA 94132
10

Plaintiff In Pro Per
11

12

D

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 mailing 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 Next Day 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 filed/lodged with the court under separate cover.
in the office of a member of the bar of this court at

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1485159.1
i declare that 1 am employed

whose direction the service was made.

~V.)~
Lorraine V. Mole