EXEMPT PROM FILING FEES GOVT CODE 6103

Transcription

1 Arthur A. Hartinger (SBN: 1) Linda M. Ross (SBN: 34) 3 Jeri~ifer L. Nock (SBN: 0663) 4 Michae] C. Hughes (SBN: 64) MEYERS, NAVE,:RIBACK, SILVER & 1th Street, Suite Oakland, California 460 Telephone: () D-000 Facsimile: () 444- EXEMPT PROM FILING FEES GOVT CODE 63 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents City of San Jos and Debra Figone SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ll 1 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, Case No. 11CV64 COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMYLOYCES; LOCAL 1, on behalf of its members, DEFENDANT CITY OF AN JOSE'S Plaintiffs.and Petitioners, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO 1 STAY CONSOLIDATEAND STAY v. Hearing: CITY OF SAN JOSE, DEBRA FIGONB, in her official capacity as CiTy Manager, Date: August, 01 Time: :00 a.m. Defendants and Respondents. Dept.: Judge: Hon. Patricia Lucas 1 THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION FOR Complaint Filed: June 6, 01 0 THE FEDERATED CITY EMPLOYES' RETIREMENT PLAN, - Trial Date: None Set. ano ~cay 11CV64

2 IS TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August, 01 at :00 a.m. in Department before the Honorable Judge Patricia Lucas, or as soonthereafter as the matter maybe heazd, in Santa Clara County Superior Court at its Downtown Superior Court, 11 North First Street, San Jose, California, 1, Defendant CiTy of San Jose will move, and hereby does move, that the five state-court actions listed below be consolidated For all purposes under the case number of San Jose Police Officers' Assn v., et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No: 11CV. This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 4 and California Rule of Court, rule San Jose Police Officers' Assn v. v. City ojsan Jose, e[ al.; Santa Clata County Superior Court Case No: 11CV. Robert Sapien, ed al. v. City ofsm: Jose, et ad.,- Santa Claza County Superior Court Case No. 11CV. Teresa Harris, e! ad. v., er ad.,- Santa C1azaCounty Superior Court Case No. 11CV0. John Mukhar, et a[: v. City of San-Jose, et al.; and Santa Claza County Superior Court Case No. 1 ICV4. AFSCME Local 1 v. City ofsan Jose, et al.; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 11CV64. Defendant the will move, and hereby does move, for the Court to exercise 1 its inherent discretionary authority to stay the five state-court actions listed above so that the 0 parties may litigate the City's Federal Action currently pending in the San Jose Division of U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, entitled: v. San Jose Polrce Officers'Ass'n, et al., Northern DisVict Case Na:1-cv-004-LHK. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.30, each of the five actions listed above involves the following parties and counsel listed below: i? Z - llcv64 DefendanPs Notice ofmo[ion and Motion to Consolidate and Stay

3 a[ - Ken any San Jose Polace Officers'Assn u u City ojsan Jose, et al; Santa Clara County Superior CouRCase No. 11CV. a ]I ] PaHies Plaintiff San Josc Police Officers Association Defendant Defendant Board of Administrators for Police and Fire DeparUnent Retirement Plan of Gregg M. Adam - Jonathan Yank Gonzalo Martinez Jennifer Stoughton CARROLL BURDICK & MCDONOI'JGH 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 44 Arthur A. Hartinger MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 1`" Street, Suite 100 Oakland, California 460 Harvey L. Leiderman Reed Smith, LLP lo1second Street Suite 00 San Francisco, CA Robert Sapien, e! al. v. City of Sare Jose, et ak; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.llCV. Plaintiffs/Petitioners John McBride Robert Sapien Christopher E. Flatten Mazy McCarthy Mazk S. Renner Thanh Ho WYLIE, MCBRIDE, FLATTEN & RENNER Randy Sekany Canoas. Gazden Avenue, Suite 10 Heredia San Jose, CA 1 i The City contends that its retirement boards, named through the state-court actions as either a defendant or a necessazy parties in interest, aze constituent boards of the. As of today, the City does nocbelieve that the retirement boards have separately filed an answer or otherwise appeazed in of the state-court actions with the exception of POA v. City San Jose, et al., Case No. 11CV. Mr. Liederman attended on behalf of the Boazd of Administration for Police and Fire DepartmeritBetirement Plan at Plaintiff POA's initial exparte TRO heazing. 3 ilcvs64 Defendants Notice o Motion and Motionto Consolidate and S[ay

4 3, 4' 6 Defendants/Respondents San Jose City Manager Debra FigoneZ Board of Administrators for Police of Arthur A. Hartinger MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 1~" Street, Suite 100 Oakland, California 460 Harvey L. Leiderman REED SMITFI LLP 1 Second Street Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 4 Teresa Harris, et a(. v. City of Sant Jose, et ag; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 11CV ',, Plaintiffs/Petitioners Teresa Harris Jon Reger Moses Serrano Defendants/fespondents San Jose City Manager _ Debra Figone Board of AdminisVatots for Police of John McBride Christopher E. Platten Mark S. Renner WYLI~, MCBRIDE, PLA1"TEN & RENNER Canoas Gazden Avenue, Suite 10 San Jose, CA 1 Arthur A. Harfinger MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 1`" Street, Suite 100 Oakland, California 460 Harvey L. Leiderman REED SMITH LLP 1 Second Street Suite ] 00 San Francisco, CA 4 `City Manager Fi~one is not a defendant in San Jose POA. v., et al., Case No. llcv, the acfion in which defendant brings this motion to consolidate Z6 and stay. The same counsel represent both the City and the City Manager in the five state-court.actions identified herein. City Manager Figone joins the City's motion with respect to everycase m which slie is a party. 4 i 1cvns6a acid Motion to Consolidate ana Srav

5 3 4 6~ John Muklear, et a(. x City ojsan Jose, of ag; Santa Clara CounTy Superior Court Case No. 11CV4. Plaintiffs/Petitioners John Mukhaz Dale Dapp James Atkins William Buffington Kirk Pennington Defendants/Respondents City of San.Jose San Jose City Manager Debra Figone Board of Administrators for Police of Ciry of San Jose John McBride Christophi Mazk S. Renner WYLIE, MCBRIDE, PLATTEN & RENNER Canoas Gazden Avenue, Suite 10 San Jose, CA 1 Arthur A. Hartinger MEYERS, NAVC, RIBACK, SILVER & 1~h Street, Suite 100 Oakland, California 460 Harvey L. Leidennan Reed Smith, LLP 1 Second Street Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 4 AFSCME Local l0l x, et al.; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. llcv64. Plaintiff/Petitioner American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1 Defendants/Respondents San Jose City Manager Debra Figone Boazd of Administcators for Police of Teague P. Paterson Vishtasp M. Soroushian BEESON; TAPER AND BODINE, APC. Ross House, nd Floor 43 Ninth Street Oakland, CA 460 Arthur A. Har[inger MSYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER& 1~h Sfreet, Suite 100 Oakland, California 460 Hazvey L. Leiderman Reed Smith, LLP 1 Second. Street Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 4 11CV64I Defendants Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate and Stay

6 3 4 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 330(a)(), the City's supporting memorandum, declaratioq and proposed order will be filed only in Dept. in case San Jose Police Officers' ~lss'n v:, et al., Santa Claza County Superior.CouR Case No. 11CV. All documents will be served on all parties. 6 I1 1 IS 1 0 DATED: August 1, 01 ta3z.1 MEY~RS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & htu A. H is inda M. R s Jennifer L. oc] Michae4 C. ug Attorneys for De CiTy of San Jose 6 t tcvz~s6a DefendanPs No[ice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate and Stay