This case, Flick v. City and County of San Francisco, is a companion case to Bull v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.), a class action case challenging the strip search policy of the City and County of San Francisco. [See JC-CA-0007]. Flick filed her case on September 3, 2003, ...
read more >
This case, Flick v. City and County of San Francisco, is a companion case to Bull v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.), a class action case challenging the strip search policy of the City and County of San Francisco. [See JC-CA-0007]. Flick filed her case on September 3, 2003, represented by attorneys C. Schwartz and Mark E. Merin, who were also class counsel in the Bull case.
Flick alleged that she was subjected to false arrest by several San Francisco police officers, purportedly for the charge of public intoxication. Plaintiff alleged that she was transported to the County Jail, where she was forcibly striped naked and thrown into a "cold room." She remained naked in the cold room, until she was released the next morning. No citation or any criminal charges were ever filed against her. Plaintiff alleged violations of her rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and California state law. She sought general, special, exemplary, and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees.
On November 6, 2003, the Court (Judge Charles R. Breyer) issued an order relating the case with Bull v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.), a class action case challenging San Francisco's strip search. [See JC-CA-0007]. Bull was filed by the same attorneys who represent Plaintiff.
On November 21, 2003, Plaintiff amended her complaint to include additional claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, negligence, violations of her rights under California law, as well as false arrest, detention, and imprisonment.
On March 18, 2011, the Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of the Bull case after establishing Plaintiff's membership in Bull's plaintiff class. Two years later, the parties in the Bull case settled and the case was dismissed. On September 30, 2013, after the Bull case was dismissed, the parties in this case reached a settlement and the Court dismissed this case, though the details of the settlement were not provided.
Timothy Shoffner - 06/11/2012
Maurice Youkanna - 07/02/2014
compress summary
