Free Notice (Other) - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 2

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 I Eric M. Safire (SBN 98706) 2431 Fillmore Street 2 I San Francisco, CA 95115 415-292-1940 Office 3 1415-292-1946 Fax 4 5 I Attorney for Plaintiff 6 7 8 9 I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-filing

10 I JENNIFER ACUNA, an individual,

CV ca&8

1020

11

v.
12

Plaintiff,

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (Civ. L. R. 3-13)

13 I CITYOF SANLEANDRO,OFFICER
GREGORY CANNEDY; individually, and in his 14 I official capacity; CHIEF DALE ATTARIAN, in his official capacity; and Does 1 through 50, 15 Defendants. 16 17 I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

TO: THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

18 I AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 currently pending before the Hon. Magistrate Judge James Larson may be related to this action. (1) The other action is a 1983 and Monell action that involves allegations that Defendant Cannedy abused his position as a law enforcement officer and committed acts of sexual assault and harassment against a female while Defendant was in uniform and on duty. In addition, Notice if hereby provided under Civil Local Rule 3-13 that the action: STARLAH BURKE v. CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, OFFICER GREGORY CANNEDY, CHIEF DALEATTARIAN, United States District Court, N.D. Cal., Case Number C07-6142 JL

--

--

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 2

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

allegation that Defendants City and Attarian failed to adequately train and supervise, and had actual knowledge of the Defendant Cannedy's propensity to abuse his position as a law enforcement officer and sexually harass and assault females are common to both actions. (2) The title of the other action is: STARLAH BURKE v. CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, OFFICER GREGORY CANNEDY, CHIEF DALE ATTAR/AN, United States District Court, N.D. Cal., Case Number C07-6142 JL (3) (a) These actions are related as each ofthe defendants is identical in both actions, the allegation regarding defendant Cannedy are similar, and the allegations against Defendants City

11 I and Attarianas to Monel/liabilityare identicalin both actions. Thus,the actionswill require
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Respectfully Submitted,
I I

essentially the same discovery for 1983 liability against Cannedy and identical discovery against Defendants City and Attarian. The same command staff and officers will need to be deposed in both actions, the same documents will need to be produced and examined, and to the extent expert testimony is required regarding training and supervision, the testimony will be the same. In addition, the same discovery in each action will take place regarding Cannedy's history, training, complaints, and discipline in the department.

I

20

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21 DatedFebruary15,2008
I

--

--

- -------