NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01705
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In NAACP OF SAN JOSE/ SILICON VALLEY v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Judge Hamilton granted reconsideration and invited briefing on Swift and Allen’s state-law claims.
Plaintiffs Swift and Allen, the City of San Jose, and the parties’ lawyers, because the court reopened briefing on the viability of Swift and Allen’s state-law claims.
What happened
NAACP OF SAN JOSE/ SILICON VALLEY v. CITY OF SAN JOSE involved a request to clarify whether Swift and Allen’s state-law claims against the City remained viable after the court’s summary judgment order.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer argued that the claims should continue under the rule that an employer or government entity can be responsible for an employee’s conduct. The court treated the letter as a request to reconsider its earlier order.
Judge Hamilton granted the request and allowed both sides to submit arguments about Swift and Allen’s claims. The order set deadlines and five-page limits for the defendants’ response and the plaintiffs’ reply; it did not decide the claims’ ultimate viability.
The detailed version
- NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose · No. 4:21-cv-01705
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 28, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court to clarify part of its summary judgment order. The specific issue was whether the state-law claims brought by Swift and Allen against the City of San Jose remained viable. Counsel argued that the claims should remain viable under vicarious liability, also called respondeat superior—the legal theory that can make an entity responsible for an employee’s conduct.
Ruling
The court treated the letter as a request for reconsideration of its summary judgment order. It granted the request based on the arguments in the letter and allowed both sides to present further arguments about Swift and Allen’s state-law claims against the City.
The defendants’ response was due by 12:00 noon on August 31, 2023. Plaintiffs’ reply was due by 5:00 p.m. on September 1, 2023. Each brief was limited to five pages. The order did not make a final determination about whether the claims were viable.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.