AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

OFFICERS FOR JUSTICE, et al, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, Inter

ORDER

CHARLES BREYER, District JudgePage 2

On June 4, 2009, the Court issued an Order denying two motions by Plaintiffs Officers for Justice: (1) a Motion to Consolidate this action, 73-0657, with 09-1675; and (2) a Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree in 73-0657. In the Discussion section of the Order, the Court included its interpretation of the "four year" language in the Q-35 Stipulation at issue. Immediately following this interpretation, the Order clearly stated: "Defendants . . . do not address this argument in their opposition; accordingly, the Court's decision on plaintiffs' present motion does not rest on the `four year' limitation in the Q-35 Stipulation."

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs Officers for Justice has made a Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's June 4, 2009 Order Denying Motion to Enforce Consent Decree, arguing that the inclusion of the Court's interpretation of the "four year" language is unnecessary and, in their view, incorrect. At the case management conference on June 19, 2009, the Court set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend the June 4, 2009 Order. The Court is already in receipt of Plaintiffs' twenty-three page motion, and two declarations in support of that motion.

In the interest of conserving the parties' resources in this time of limited resources, the Court has determined that further briefing is unnecessary. As the portion of the June 4, 2009 Order regarding the "four year" language in the Q-35 Stipulation was mere dicta, the Court will issue an amended Order omitting such language. The Court declines Plaintiffs' request to explicitly "determine the [Q-35 eligibility] list to be active," opting instead to be silent on the issue.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART.

On or before July 9, 2009, the parties shall submit to the Court a stipulation as to how the Court should proceed on the pending motions in the related case, 09-1675 CRB. If the parties cannot reach agreement, they shall appear for a case management conference at 8:30 a.m. on July 10, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OFFICERS FOR JUSTICE v. CIVIL SERVICE COM. OF CITY
(Jun 22, 2009)