Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-04191
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rubalcava v. Perez, Judge Freeman set conditional trial procedures while defendants’ qualified-immunity appeal remained pending.
Lionel Rubalcava and defendants Joseph Perez, Steven Spillman, and Topui Fonua, along with their counsel, are affected by the conditional pretrial deadlines, jury procedures, trial schedule, and procedures for raising motions during trial.
What happened
In Lionel Rubalcava v. Joseph Perez, Steven Spillman, and Topui Fonua, the court held a final pretrial conference on April 23, 2024. Defendants had appealed the court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
The court explained that this appeal automatically prevents the district court from proceeding with trial unless the stay is lifted. It separately addressed pretrial matters, including motions in limine, and ordered the parties to prepare revised trial materials and follow specified jury-selection and trial-time procedures.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order made all listed trial dates and procedures conditional on the automatic stay being lifted. The order did not decide the motions in limine, which the court said would be addressed separately.
The detailed version
- Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose · No. 5:20-cv-04191
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 24, 2024
Background
The court held a final pretrial conference on April 23, 2024. It heard arguments on motions in limine filed by both sides but stated that those motions would be addressed in a separate order. The court also discussed trial scheduling and procedures with counsel.
Defendants had filed a notice of appeal on April 9, 2024, from the court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal taken before the case is fully finished—normally removes the district court’s authority over the issues involved in the appeal. In a qualified-immunity appeal, the trial is automatically stayed while the appeal is pending. The opinion states that no party challenged the court’s authority to conduct the pretrial matters addressed at the conference, including the motions in limine.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit revised pretrial materials by 5:00 p.m. on June 7, 2024: a joint neutral statement, a joint jury questionnaire, joint jury instructions, and revised proposed verdict forms and special interrogatories. If the parties could not agree on a joint neutral statement, counsel had to appear in court beginning June 10, 2024, and continue appearing each day until they submitted an agreed statement.
The court scheduled a jury-instruction conference for July 1, 2024. It ordered that nine jurors would be seated, with each side receiving three peremptory challenges. Each side would receive 30 hours for trial examinations, plus 60 minutes for opening statements and 90 minutes for closing arguments. The order also set regular trial-day hours, with Thursdays designated as non-trial days.
The court established a procedure for motions during trial. It would be available from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on each trial day to hear motions. Written motions were limited to three pages, and each side could file no more than one written motion per court day under the stated filing and formatting requirements.
Disposition and effect
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the revised pretrial materials and procedures described above, but stated that the referenced dates would apply only if the automatic stay of trial were lifted. The order did not resolve the qualified-immunity appeal or the motions in limine.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.