University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Trujillo v. City of Ontario PN-CA-0017
Docket / Court 5:04-cv-01015-VAP-PJW ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Policing
Attorney Organization ACLU of Southern California
Hadsell, Stormer & Renick
Case Summary
On August 13, 2004, employees of the Ontario Police Department filed suit against the City of Ontario, CA and the Ontario Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 4th Amendment, California Constitution Article 1 § 1, and the common law tort of invasion of privacy. The suit was filed in ... read more >
On August 13, 2004, employees of the Ontario Police Department filed suit against the City of Ontario, CA and the Ontario Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 4th Amendment, California Constitution Article 1 § 1, and the common law tort of invasion of privacy. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and both private counsel and the ACLU of Southern California represented the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that the Police Department's installation of a video camera in the men's locker room violated their privacy rights, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

On April 14, 2005, the District Court (Judge Virginia Phillips) certified a class of all employees or volunteers at the Ontario Police Department who used the men's locker room during the time the video camera was installed and were recorded by the equipment. A year later, Judge Phillips ruled that the video camera installation violated the 4th amendment, and that issues of fact remained on the other two causes of action. 428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The defendants appealed the trial court's refusal to grant the officers qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's denial of qualified immunity. 270 Fed. Appx. 518 (9th Cir. 2008). The case was set to proceed to trial.

On the morning of the scheduled first day of trial, the parties announced they had reached a settlement. On March 16, 2009 the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the class action settlement; two months later, the court granted preliminary approval, pending consideration of any objections by class members.. Under the settlement Ontario paid $1.54 million to class members, and $1.21 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement was "non-reversionary," meaning that even if only a few class members actually claimed the damages they were promised, Ontario was still obligated to pay the entire agreed-upon amount. On August 24, 2009, the court granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Sharon Brett - 11/20/2009


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Unreasonable search and seizure
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) City of Ontario
Plaintiff Description Employees of City of Ontario Police Department
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU of Southern California
Hadsell, Stormer & Renick
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2006 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2009
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links New York City to Pay Up to $75 Million Over Dismissed Summonses
New York Times
Written: Jan. 23, 2017
By: Benjamin Weiser (New York Times)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Panopticism for Police: Structural Reform Bargaining and Police Regulation by Data-Driven Surveillance
By: Mary D. Fan (University of Washington)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
5:04-cv-1015-VAP-PJW (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/10/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
First Amended Complaint for Damages
PN-CA-0017-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/28/2004
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 20] (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/14/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF# 92] (428 F.Supp.2d 1094) (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/14/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (269 Fed.Appx. 683)
PN-CA-0017-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/10/2008
Source: Westlaw
Opinion - Affirming District Court's Denial of Immunity [Ct. of App. ECF# 110] (270 Fed.Appx. 518)
PN-CA-0017-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/07/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: interim attorneys fees [Ct. of App. ECF# 114]
PN-CA-0017-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/13/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF# 237]
PN-CA-0017-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 1 to Motion for Settlement [ECF# 237-2]
PN-CA-0017-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release [ECF# 258-2]
PN-CA-0017-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/14/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release [ECF# 275] (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/14/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Conditionally Granting Motion Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF# 277] (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/11/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Settlement Check Distribution to Class Members [ECF# 293] (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/19/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement [ECF# 298] (2009 WL 2632723) (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0010.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/24/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Leighton, Ronald B. Court not on record
PN-CA-0017-0011 | PN-CA-0017-0012 | PN-CA-0017-0013
Phillips, Virginia A. (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-0002 | PN-CA-0017-0003 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-0008 | PN-CA-0017-0009 | PN-CA-0017-0010 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Pregerson, Harry Court not on record
PN-CA-0017-0011 | PN-CA-0017-0012 | PN-CA-0017-0013
Walsh, Patrick J. (C.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0017-9000
Wardlaw, Kim McLane Court not on record
PN-CA-0017-0011 | PN-CA-0017-0012 | PN-CA-0017-0013
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bahan, Della (California)
PN-CA-0017-0001 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Batra, Puja (District of Columbia)
PN-CA-0017-0001 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Bibring, Peter (California)
PN-CA-0017-0001 | PN-CA-0017-0004 | PN-CA-0017-0005 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Dammeier, Dieter C (California)
PN-CA-0017-0001 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)
PN-CA-0017-0001 | PN-CA-0017-0004 | PN-CA-0017-0005 | PN-CA-0017-0006 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-9000
McGill, Michael A (California)
PN-CA-0017-0001 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Richardson, Anne (California)
PN-CA-0017-0004 | PN-CA-0017-0005 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Sainath, Radhika (California)
PN-CA-0017-0004
Stormer, Dan Lewis (California)
PN-CA-0017-0004 | PN-CA-0017-0005 | PN-CA-0017-0006 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Brustowicz, Celeste (California)
PN-CA-0017-0005 | PN-CA-0017-0006 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-0009 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Disenhouse, Bruce E (California)
PN-CA-0017-0005 | PN-CA-0017-0006 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-9000
Martin, Linda Bernatz (California)
PN-CA-0017-9000
Rinos, Dimitrios C. (California)
PN-CA-0017-0006 | PN-CA-0017-0007 | PN-CA-0017-0009
Tundis, Mark John (California)
PN-CA-0017-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -