University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Allen v. City of Oakland PN-CA-0010
Docket / Court 3:00-cv-04599-TEH ( N.D. Cal. )
Additional Docket(s) 3:01-cv-00080-TEH  [ 01-80 ]
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Policing
Special Collection Court-ordered receiverships
Attorney Organization Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Case Summary
On December 17, 2000, a citizen filed this §1983 class action lawsuit against the City of Oakland and its police department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a group of rogue police officers within the OPD known as "the Riders" violated the plaintiff's ... read more >
On December 17, 2000, a citizen filed this §1983 class action lawsuit against the City of Oakland and its police department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a group of rogue police officers within the OPD known as "the Riders" violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by kidnapping, beating, and planting drugs on the plaintiff.

On March 26, 2001, District Judge Charles A. Legge ordered that several other civil rights cases pending against the OPD be consolidated with this case under the consolidated case number C00-4599 TEH (JL). These cases were sometimes referred to as the "Riders" cases and involved approximately 119 plaintiffs represented by private counsel and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Following consolidation, the plaintiffs' complaint was amended three times.

The case was eventually transferred to District Judge Thelton E. Henderson. The parties engaged in protracted settlement negotiations and participated in numerous court ordered settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge James Larson. A settlement was reached in early 2003, after about eighteen months of negotiations.

On March 14, 2003, Judge Henderson approved the settlement agreement and dismissal of the claims by the plaintiffs/putative class members. The settlement called for payment of $10.9 million to plaintiffs and the implementation of numerous reforms to OPD polices and procedures over a five year monitoring period. Reforms were to be made in the following core areas:

  1. Internal Affairs Investigations
  2. Discipline
  3. Field Supervision
  4. Management Oversight
  5. Use of Force Reporting
  6. Personnel Information Management System (PIMS)
  7. Training
  8. Auditing and Review Systems

On March 24, 2003, the District Court granted a motion for limited intervention by the Oakland Police Officers' Association.

On August 20, 2003, the District Court appointed Rachel Burgess, Kelli Evans, Charles Gruber, and Christy Lopez to serve as the Independent Monitoring Team [IMT] to oversee the reform implementation process.

Meanwhile, in other proceedings, state criminal charges were brought against four OPD officers for alleged crimes stemming from the Riders scandal. After a nine month criminal trial, three OPD officers were acquitted of most charges, with the jury deadlocked on other charges. The alleged ringleader of the Riders fled to escape prosecution.

On June 26, 2008, the parties stipulated that the Court's jurisdiction could be extended until April 21, 2010. The settlement agreement expired by its own terms on January 22, 2010. On January 27, 2010, the Court issued an order that resulted from a Memorandum of Understanding. The order incorporated the terms of the 2003 Settlement Agreement between the parties, and allowed monitoring to continue until January 2012. An additional independent monitoring team was also appointed to issue quarterly reports regarding OPD's compliance.

On June 23, 2011, the parties entered into an Amended Memorandum of Understanding (AMOU), extending the terms of the agreement until January 22, 2014, with a proviso requiring narrowing and continuation of the AMOU if compliance had not been achieved by January 2014.

On September 15, 2011, in a Joint Status Conference, the parties acknowledged that progress toward achieving the 'Tasks' for compliance had grounded to a halt. The Independent Monitor attributed the lack of progress to a failure of the City of Oakland to take the litigation seriously. Similarly, on January 19, 2012, in a Joint Status Conference, compliance was 'not in sight' and had 'stagnated.' The Independent Monitor's Eighth Quarterly Report (under the 2011 AMOU) reported that little progress had been made in the two years since his appointment. The plaintiffs requested a briefing schedule for a motion to put the Oakland Police Department into receivership.

On January 24, 2012, as an alternative to considering receivership, the Court conferred additional authority on the Monitor, requiring the chief of police to consult with the Monitor on all major decisions that would impact the Settlement Agreement. The Monitor was instructed to report to the Mayor and City Administrators any time the Chief took actions against his advice. If the City did not reverse the Chief of Police's decision, then the Court would hold a hearing to determine if the Monitor's recommendation should be implemented.

On February 22, 2012, the Court formally announced its consideration of the possibility of Receivership and scheduled briefing. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for December 13, 2012.

In the meantime, the Independent Monitor filed a Ninth Quarterly Report on April 30, 2012, noting several particular problems with the conduct of OPD police officers during the Occupy Oakland protests. The Monitoring team was concerned about outsourcing police misconduct investigations because it indicated that the breadth of complaints was beyond internal affairs' capacity, demonstrated a lack of confidence in unbiased investigation by internal affairs, and jeopardized compliance under sections of the original Negotiated Settlement Agreement.

The parties finished briefing the receivership issue. As described by Judge Henderson in an order on the matter, "Nearly ten years after the parties agreed to a consent decree that was to have been completed in five years but that remains incomplete, the Court was scheduled to hear Plaintiffs' motion to appoint a receiver. After reviewing Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, it became clear that Defendants did not dispute many of the issues raised by Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs' conclusion that Defendants would be unable to achieve compliance without further intervention by this Court. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on how this case should proceed and, following the parties' request, referred this case to a magistrate judge for settlement." The settlement discussions concluded December 5, 2012, with an agreement for additional oversight by a Compliance Director, appointed by and answerable to the Court, who would have "directive authority" over OPD, relevant to the existing consent decrees. The monitor was to stay in place, as well. While not quite a receivership, the Compliance Director was assigned very extensive authority, including to direct individual expenditures of up to $250,000, and to discipline, demote, or remove the Chief of Police, Assistant Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs (subject to appeal to the Court).

The Court approved this settlement on December 12, 2012.

In March 2013—pursuant to its December 12, 2012 order—the Court appointed a Compliance Director. The Director first issued a Remedial Action Plan that May, addressing in particular (1) supervisors' failure to intervene in or report unacceptable behavior, (2) the lack of impartiality in investigations of officer misconduct, (3) executive leadership's inaction repudiating the previous two deficiencies, as well as (4) its neglect in proactively addressing them. At May's end, the Director issued a Benchmark Plan, thoroughly detailing the priorities, goals, and timeframe for compliance. Finally, he issued six monthly progress reports from July through December 2013. In the last report, he identified "[n]otable progress across a broad range of complex issues and projects continues at an acceptable pace."

In February 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the roles of Compliance Director and Monitor, terminating the existing appointment and giving compliance authority to the position, described as "broad, essentially receiver-like powers in areas related to the negotiated reforms, including procurement authority for individual expenditures not exceeding $250,000 and the power to discipline, demote, or remove the Chief of Police." The Court explained that the bifurcation of the two roles had proven "unnecessarily duplicative," and "less efficient and more expensive than the Court contemplated." The existing monitor took on the new role.

Between April 2014 and June 2015, the Monitor noted significant improvement in OPD's compliance with the settlement agreement. Over this period, the Monitor found that OPD was in full compliance with a majority of the tasks outlined in the agreement. He closely monitored several areas of partial compliance, such as reporting misconduct; vehicle stops, field investigations, and detentions; and responding to allegations of retaliation against witnesses. Although there were reasons to have "cautious optimism," including an influx of new officers, a decrease in complaints, a reduction in the use of force, and a new set of personnel in OPD leadership roles, there was still much to be done to institutionalize these reforms. He feared that OPD was more focused on achieving technical compliance with the settlement agreement instead of achieving sustainable reform.

On May 21, 2015, Judge Henderson issued an order modifying the monitoring plan. The Court called for monthly monitoring reports, instead of quarterly. Additionally, the Court held that any tasks with which OPD has been in substantial compliance for one year would no longer be subject to monitoring. The areas that remained under active monitoring after this order were: (1) complaint procedures for the Internal Affairs Division; (2) span of control for supervisors; (3) Force Review Board; (4) Executive Force Review Board; (5) vehicle stops, field investigation, and detentions; (5) use of PAS; and (6) consistency of discipline policy. Between July 2015 and February 2018, Mr. Warshaw filed monthly status reports monitoring OPD's compliance with the settlement agreement and the institutionalization of reform.

On December 11, 2015, Judge Henderson issued an order requiring that the City must implement a revised policy with respect to the review of uses of force. Under the policy, the review boards must assess whether the use of deadly force may have been avoided and identify tactics, strategies, and opportunities that may have avoided the use of force.

In September 2016, 12 OPD officers were disciplined and four were criminally prosecuted for sexual and professional misconduct involving a minor. A court-appointed investigator issued a report on the incident on June 21, 2017. The investigator found that OPD's initial investigation was wholly inadequate and that OPD's investigatory process was deficient. Additionally, OPD failed to give the victim appropriate attention and care because she was young, engaged in prostitution, struggled with mental health issues, and used drugs. The report found that the Monitor, Mayor, and City Administrator did not learn of the sexual misconduct allegations until March 2016 and criticized the Mayor and City Administrator for not doing enough to examine OPD's failure to adequately investigate the allegations. The report also included several recommendations, including training and procedural improvements for notifying the DA's Office of misconduct allegations.

Following the investigator's June 2017 report, the City issued a statement whereby it agreed to improve its investigation procedures. Specifically, the City agreed to provide a more robust review of officer misconduct allegations, provide better and higher-level oversight of criminal investigations, and improve hiring practices to better screen officers at every step including recruitment, hiring, and training.

On August 14, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick. The Court issued several joint status conference statements, in which it documented continued compliance efforts with respect to the settlement agreement, as well as OPD's action plan for assessing allegations of OPD criminal conduct. Additionally, Mr. Warshaw was still preparing monthly status reports tracking OPD's compliance with the agreement.

On November 16, 2018, the Court issued a joint status conference statement noting that several new problems had arisen, calling into question whether OPD had actually made as much compliance progress as appeared to be the case earlier in the year. Specifically, use of force statistics had been erratic, the number of complaints had risen, problems with the hiring process had been discovered, and the comparative discipline study that OPD had been planning to implement had been stalled. The statement also identified three areas in which OPD had not yet achieved compliance with the settlement agreement: (1) stop data; (2) complaint procedures; and (3) consistency of discipline.

As of November 22, 2018, the monitoring process is ongoing.

- 12/14/2012
David Postel - 02/10/2014
Eva Richardson - 11/21/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Content of Injunction
Auditing
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Receivership
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Training
General
Excessive force
Failure to discipline
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
False arrest
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Pattern or Practice
Racial profiling
Record-keeping
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Oakland Police Department
Plaintiff Description All individuals who suffered deprivation of their constitutional rights by members of the OPD.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2003 - n/a
Filing Year 2000
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing PN-CA-0018 : Local 10 ILWU v. City of Oakland (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
3:01-cv-80 (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-9005.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/14/2003
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
3:00-cv-04599-TEH (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/05/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Riders’ Pattern and Practice Settlement Agreement - Summary Sheet
PN-CA-0010-0002.pdf | Detail
Date:
A Message from Chief Richard L. Word
PN-CA-0010-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2003
Settlement Agreement Re: Pattern And Practice Claims
PN-CA-0010-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/04/2004
Amended Memorandum of Understanding RE: Post NSA Terms and Conditions . . . [ECF# 618]
PN-CA-0010-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/23/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Conference RE: Non-Monetary Settlement Issues. [ECF# 633]
PN-CA-0010-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/15/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT [ECF# 674]
PN-CA-0010-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/19/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Vacating January 26, 2012 Status Conference and Conferring Additional Authority On the Monitor [ECF# 675] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/24/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Conference RE: Non-Monetary Settlement Issues [ECF# 674]
PN-CA-0010-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against Officer Hargraves and Lieutenant Wong [ECF# 676] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/27/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Proposed Order in RE: Briefing and Hearing Dates for Receivership Proceedings [ECF# 684]
PN-CA-0010-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/22/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
City of Oakland's March 2012 Quarterly Report . . . in RE: Investigation of Retaliation Claims [ECF# 688]
PN-CA-0010-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/30/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Ninth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department [ECF# 690]
PN-CA-0010-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/30/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Parties' Joint Submission of Proposed Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Receivership Motion, Defendants' Opposition to Receivership Motion and the Papers Filed by Plaintiffs in Intervention Regarding Receivership Motion Scheduled for December 13, 2012 [ECF# 884]
PN-CA-0010-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/05/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER RE: COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR [ECF# 885] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/12/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Appointing Compliance Director [ECF# 911] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/04/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Oakland Police Department Remedial Action Plan First Report [ECF# 930]
PN-CA-0010-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/01/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Oakland Police Department Benchmarks Plan First Report [ECF# 938]
PN-CA-0010-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/31/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Oakland Police Department Initial Monthly Progress Report [ECF# 943]
PN-CA-0010-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/01/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Oakland Police Department Monthly Progress Report December 1, 2013 [ECF# 965]
PN-CA-0010-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/01/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER MODIFYING COMPLIANCE OVERSIGHT MODEL [ECF# 973] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0020.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/12/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant City of Oakland's 9th Further Response to September 11, 2012 Court Order Re: NSA-Related Contracts [ECF# 1051]
PN-CA-0010-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Modifying Monitoring Plan [ECF# 1058] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/21/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re: Force Review Board and Executive Force Review Board Policy [ECF# 1076] (N.D. Cal.)
PN-CA-0010-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/11/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Court-Appointed Investigator’s Report on the City of Oakland’s Response to Allegations of Officer Sexual Misconduct [ECF# 1144]
PN-CA-0010-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Conference Statement [ECF# 1150]
PN-CA-0010-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/05/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Conference Statement [ECF# 1167]
PN-CA-0010-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Conference Statement [ECF# 1199]
PN-CA-0010-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/24/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Fifty-Seventh Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department [ECF# 1219]
PN-CA-0010-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/02/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Conference Statement [ECF# 1221]
PN-CA-0010-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/16/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Cousins, Nathanael M. (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Henderson, Thelton Eugene (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0004 | PN-CA-0010-0005 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0015 | PN-CA-0010-0016 | PN-CA-0010-0020 | PN-CA-0010-0023 | PN-CA-0010-0024
Orrick, William Horsley III (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Monitors/Masters Evans, Kelli M. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Frazier, Thomas C. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0017 | PN-CA-0010-0018 | PN-CA-0010-0019 | PN-CA-0010-0021 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Warshaw, Robert S. (New Hampshire) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0006 | PN-CA-0010-0029 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Yank, Ronald (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Burris, John L. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001 | PN-CA-0010-0008 | PN-CA-0010-0010 | PN-CA-0010-0011 | PN-CA-0010-0012 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-0030 | PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Chanin, James B. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001 | PN-CA-0010-0008 | PN-CA-0010-0010 | PN-CA-0010-0011 | PN-CA-0010-0012 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-0030 | PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Hamoy-Perera, Aimee G. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Houk, Julie (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Kumin, Matthew W. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Scott, John Houston (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001 | PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Defendant's Lawyers Bee, Maria (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0030
Bliss, Kimberly (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-0030 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Cassidy, Terence J (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Chao, Cedric C. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Chao, Katharine (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Colwell, Kimberly E. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Fierro, Rocio V. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0008 | PN-CA-0010-0010 | PN-CA-0010-0011 | PN-CA-0010-0012 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Fishman, Edward Marc (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Fox, Gregory Mellon (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001 | PN-CA-0010-0007 | PN-CA-0010-0008 | PN-CA-0010-0010 | PN-CA-0010-0011 | PN-CA-0010-0012 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Gruwell, Paul B. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014
Hall, Randolph (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Hoffman, Peter A. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014
Huneke, Nancy A. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Hynes, Tricia L. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Jefferson, Jamilah A. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-0022 | PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-0030 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Johnson, Kerri A. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Kee, Christopher (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Leed, Claudia (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001
McCrimmon, Deborah E. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
McGee, Otis Jr. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0022 | PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Mello, Paul Brian (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Parker, Barbara J (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-0022 | PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-0030 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Rains, Michael Logan (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Rapoport, William R. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Rowell, Stephen Q. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Russo, John A. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001
Schneider, Walter R. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Simoncini, Kenneth D. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0001 | PN-CA-0010-9000 | PN-CA-0010-9005
Verber, John Jeffrey (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Wilson, Edwin Joshua Jr. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Wolff, Samantha D. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Other Lawyers Huang, Yolanda (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Lederman, Rachel (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-9000
Lucia, Rockne (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0008 | PN-CA-0010-0010 | PN-CA-0010-0011 | PN-CA-0010-0012 | PN-CA-0010-0013 | PN-CA-0010-0014 | PN-CA-0010-0026 | PN-CA-0010-0027 | PN-CA-0010-0028 | PN-CA-0010-0030 | PN-CA-0010-9000
Swanson, Edward W. (California) show/hide docs
PN-CA-0010-0025 | PN-CA-0010-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -