University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Morales v. Hickman CJ-CA-0004
Docket / Court 06-0219 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Attorney Organization ACLU of Northern California
Case Summary
On January 11, 2006, several inmates at the state prison at San Quentin filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, all of whom were scheduled to be executed by lethal ... read more >
On January 11, 2006, several inmates at the state prison at San Quentin filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, all of whom were scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, alleged that their constitutional rights were threatened, arguing that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. They further argued that pancuronium bromide, a paralytic agent that acts as a chemical veil over the lethal injection process, disguises the pain and suffering to which a prisoner being executed is subjected, masking the constitutional violation.

On February 13, 2006, these cases were consolidated, with Michael Angelo Morales being treated as the lead plaintiff. On February 14, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jeremy Fogel) conditionally denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary stay of execution, stipulating that the stay would be granted unless the defendants certified in writing that they would either 1) use only sodium thiopental during the execution or 2) agree to obtain an independent verification by a medically qualified individual that the plaintiff is unconscious before he receives the lethal injection. Morales v. Hickman, 415 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D.Cal. 2006). The plaintiff appealed. On February 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam denial of the appeal. Morales v. Hickman, 438 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2006). The plaintiff sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Morales v. Hickman, 546 U.S. 1163 (2006).

As the execution was about to commence on February 21, 2006, the two anesthesiologists designated by the defendants to certify that the plaintiff was unconscious declined to participate in the execution due to ethical concerns arising from their lack of understanding of certain language in the opinions that had been issued in the case. As a result of this hesitation, the execution did not go forward as scheduled. Later the same day, the District Court (Judge Fogel) again ordered the execution by lethal injection to go forward, using sodium thiopental. For reasons that are not specified in our documents, the execution was not carried out, the defendants were unwilling or unable to execute the plaintiff in accordance with the requirements of the District Court, and a stay of execution to permit an evidentiary hearing issued automatically pursuant to the District Court's order of February 14, 2006.

From September 26-29, 2006, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue. On December 15, 2006, the District Court (Judge Fogel) issued an opinion holding that it would be unconstitutional to inject a prisoner who was not unconscious and ordering the defendants to review and revise their execution procedures.

On January 16, 2007, the defendants responded to the district court's order, advising the court of their intent to revise the state's execution procedures and asking the court for a protective order that would allow them to obtain accurate and candid information necessary to the revision. On March 6, 2007, the District Court denied the motion for a protective order, holding that it was unnecessary. On May 15, 2007, the State of California issued the Lethal Injection Protocol Review, a document that discussed the history and procedures involved in lethal injection, as well as necessary changes that would be made to the procedure.

On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint alleging that the defendant's Lethal Injunction Protocol Review still created "a grave and substantial risk that Plaintiff will not be adequately unconscious during the execution process and, as a result, will experience an excruciatingly painful and protracted death." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs argued that the defendant's protocol represented an unconstitutional risk of severe pain.

On April 16, 2008 , the United States Supreme Court decided Baze v. Rees. In that case, the Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection protocol as constitutional. Significant to the case at hand, the Kentucky protocol utilized the same three-drug cocktail as California's amended protocol does. The Court established that to show an 8th amendment violation, a plaintiff must prove that a State's lethal injection protocol "creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. [They] must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives." The Court found that Kentucky's protocol did not violate this standard. Moreover, the plurality opinion held that "a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard."

On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint again alleging that the defendant's Lethal Injunction Protocol Review "will subject them to present demonstrated substantial risks of inflicting tortuous pain and suffering under the Eighth Amendment." Furthermore, the Plaintiffs contended that "Defendants' continued use of their three-drug procedure when tested, available alternatives exist establishes that the demonstrated risk of severe pain by Defendants' process is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. Defendants have refused to adopt such alternatives in the face of these documented advantages, without any legitimate penological justification for their continued retention of the three-drug protocol."

On October 25, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim. The defendants argued, "plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a facial challenge to California's regulations because the regulations are substantially similar to or exceed the regulations approved by the United States Supreme Court in Baze." Moreover, the motion argued, "Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that, as written, California's regulations will necessarily subject Plaintiffs to a substantial risk of serious harm, where serious harm means severe pain." However, the defendants did not challenge the plaintiffs as applied challenge.

On December 10, 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim. Given the defendants' burden at the motion to dismiss stage of the litigation, the court was unwilling to find that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. However, the court made clear that it "intends to monitor closely the scope and pace of any additional discovery so that the merits of Plaintiffs' claims can be adjudicated promptly."

On June 19, 2013 the District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to intervene and to stay execution for an additional plaintiff. On September 17, 2013 the Court granted another motion to intervene for two more plaintiffs.

On November 7, 2014, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit called Winchell & Alexander v. Beard against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Sacramento County Superior Court. The plaintiffs were two individuals whose family members had been murdered by inmates currently on death row who are plaintiffs in Morales v. Hickman. The plaintiffs in Winchell & Alexander argued that as relatives of the victims they had been denied justice by the continued delays of the executions. This case was settled on June 2, 2015 when CDCR agreed to promulgate a single-drug lethal injection regulation within 120 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Glossip v. Gross. See the CJLF's website for more information.

On June 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Glossip v. Gross that the sedative midazolam may be part of the lethal injection protocol. 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015).

On October 27, 2015 CDCR submitted its notice of proposed adoption of lethal injection regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for publication in the California Regulatory Notice Register, pursuant to the settlement in Winchell & Alexander v. Beard. According to California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's website, the notice was published in the register on November 6, 2015. The proposed regulations would change the death penalty protocol from the three-drug cocktail to a single drug.

In a new setback to efforts to restart executions in California, the state's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has rejected the new lethal injection protocol proposed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On December 28, 2016, the OAL, which is responsible for reviewing regulatory changes proposed in California, issued a 25-page decision of disapproval, citing inconsistencies, inadequate justification for certain parts of the proposal, and a failure to adequately respond to public comments. The agency gave the Department of Corrections four months to address problems in the protocol. See the Death Penalty Information Center website.

As a result, this case is ongoing.

Justin Benson - 02/05/2012
Anna Jones - 03/28/2016
Abigail DeHart - 11/04/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Death Penalty
Lethal Injection - Chemicals Used
Lethal Injection - General
Lethal Injection - Staffing (including physician)
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Habeas Corpus
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) California Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description Death-row inmates at California’s San Quentin State Prison
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU of Northern California
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Unknown
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None yet
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing CJ-CA-0005 : Pacific News Service v. Woodford (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
Date: Aug. 11, 2014
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
(N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint
CJ-CA-0004-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/11/2006
Motion
CJ-CA-0004-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/13/2006
Motion for TRO
CJ-CA-0004-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/26/2006
Plaintiff's Proposed Compliance Order
CJ-CA-0004-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/01/2006
Complaint [ECF# 1]
CJ-CA-0004-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/10/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Consolidating Cases [ECF# 3] (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0041.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/13/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 62] (415 F.Supp.2d 1037 ) (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/14/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Defendant's Motion to Proceed with Execution Under Alternative Condition [ECF# 78] (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/14/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Application for Stay of Execution
CJ-CA-0004-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2006
Appellant's Opening Brief
CJ-CA-0004-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2006
State's Brief and Opposition to Motion for Stay of Execution
CJ-CA-0004-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2006
Plaintiff's Reply Brief and Reply to Oppositon to Motion for Stay of Execution
CJ-CA-0004-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/18/2006
Petition for Rehearing and Request for Rehearing en Banc and Stay of Exectuion
CJ-CA-0004-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/19/2006
Order (438 F.3d 926)
CJ-CA-0004-0049.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/19/2006
Source: Google Scholar
Application for Stay of Execution
CJ-CA-0004-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/20/2006
Petition for Certiorari Denied (546 U.S. 1163)
CJ-CA-0004-0050.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/20/2006
Source: Westlaw
State's Filing of Redacted Revised Operational Procedure [ECF# 96]
CJ-CA-0004-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/06/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint [ECF# 19]
CJ-CA-0004-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/06/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint (April 6, 2006) [ECF# 131]
CJ-CA-0004-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/06/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Order Continuing Evidentiary Hearing to September 19, 2006 [ECF# 149] (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/27/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Pre-Hearing Conference Statement #1 [ECF# 163]
CJ-CA-0004-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/03/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Pre-Hearing Conference Statement #2 [ECF# 164]
CJ-CA-0004-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/03/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Refiled Joint Pre-Hearing Conference Statement #1 [ECF# 215]
CJ-CA-0004-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/15/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Refiled Joint Pre-Hearing Conference Statement #2 [ECF# 216]
CJ-CA-0004-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/15/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Refiled Joint Pre-Hearing Conference Statement #2 [ECF# 216]
CJ-CA-0004-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/15/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 242] (2006 WL 2724152) (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0021.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/22/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
September 26-29, 2006 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript
CJ-CA-0004-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/26/2006
Request for Briefing [ECF# 256] (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/03/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Post-Trial Declaration of Dr. Mark Heath
CJ-CA-0004-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/09/2006
Post-Trial Declaration of Dr. Kevin Concannon
CJ-CA-0004-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/09/2006
Declaration of Michael Loomis, DVM
CJ-CA-0004-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/09/2006
State's Post-Hearing Brief and Response to Court's Questions [ECF# 269]
CJ-CA-0004-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/09/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Declaration of Dr. William Ebling [ECF# 283]
CJ-CA-0004-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/09/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Filing of Statement of Undisputed Facts - Redacted [ECF# 277]
CJ-CA-0004-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/27/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Morales' Post Hearing Brief - Redacted [ECF# 280]
CJ-CA-0004-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/28/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Court's Memorandum [ECF# 290] (465 F.Supp.2d 972) (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0031.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/15/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Response of Governor's Office to Court's Memorandum [ECF# 291]
CJ-CA-0004-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/16/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant's Response to Court's Memorandum [ECF# 292]
CJ-CA-0004-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/16/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion for Protective Order [ECF# 294]
CJ-CA-0004-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/16/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Related Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order [ECF# 301]
CJ-CA-0004-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2007
Opposition to Motion for Protective Order [ECF# 303]
CJ-CA-0004-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Response [ECF# 304]
CJ-CA-0004-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Motion for Protective Order [ECF# 312] (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/06/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
State of California Lethal Injection Protocol Review
CJ-CA-0004-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/15/2007
Third Amended Complaint for Equitable and Injunctive Relief [42 U.S.C. § 1983] [ECF# 323]
CJ-CA-0004-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/02/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Fourth Amended Complaint for Equitable and Injunctive Relief [42 U.S.C. § 1983] [ECF# 428]
CJ-CA-0004-0045.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/08/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [ECF# 430]
CJ-CA-0004-0044.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/25/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition of Plaintiffs Michael A. Morales and Albert G. Brown to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 440]
CJ-CA-0004-0046.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/08/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order RE Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 461] (757 F.Supp.2d 961) (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0047.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/10/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene and to Stay Execution by Kevin Cooper; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Proposed Order [ECF# 564]
CJ-CA-0004-0048.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/05/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Kevin Cooper's Motion to Intervene and to Stay Execution (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0051.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/19/2013
Source: Bloomberg Law
Order Granting Scott Pinholster and William Payton's Motion to Intervene and to Stay Execution [ECF# 586] (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0052.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/17/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Fisher, Raymond C. (Ninth Circuit)
CJ-CA-0004-0049
Fogel, Jeremy D. (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0004 | CJ-CA-0004-0011 | CJ-CA-0004-0015 | CJ-CA-0004-0021 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-0023 | CJ-CA-0004-0031 | CJ-CA-0004-0041 | CJ-CA-0004-0047 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (Ninth Circuit, SCOTUS)
CJ-CA-0004-0050
Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (D. Alaska, Ninth Circuit)
CJ-CA-0004-0049
McKeown, M. Margaret (Ninth Circuit)
CJ-CA-0004-0049
Seeborg, Richard G. (N.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0004-0051 | CJ-CA-0004-0052 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Anders, Ginger (District of Columbia)
CJ-CA-0004-0001 | CJ-CA-0004-0002 | CJ-CA-0004-0003 | CJ-CA-0004-0005 | CJ-CA-0004-0006 | CJ-CA-0004-0008 | CJ-CA-0004-0009 | CJ-CA-0004-0010 | CJ-CA-0004-0014 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-0027 | CJ-CA-0004-0028 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Cohbra, Sara Melissa (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
DeWitt, Katie Christine (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0048 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Doherty, Jean M. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Drozdowski, Mark Raymond (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Grele, John R. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0001 | CJ-CA-0004-0002 | CJ-CA-0004-0003 | CJ-CA-0004-0005 | CJ-CA-0004-0006 | CJ-CA-0004-0008 | CJ-CA-0004-0009 | CJ-CA-0004-0010 | CJ-CA-0004-0012 | CJ-CA-0004-0014 | CJ-CA-0004-0015 | CJ-CA-0004-0016 | CJ-CA-0004-0017 | CJ-CA-0004-0018 | CJ-CA-0004-0019 | CJ-CA-0004-0020 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-0025 | CJ-CA-0004-0026 | CJ-CA-0004-0027 | CJ-CA-0004-0028 | CJ-CA-0004-0029 | CJ-CA-0004-0030 | CJ-CA-0004-0035 | CJ-CA-0004-0036 | CJ-CA-0004-0037 | CJ-CA-0004-0040 | CJ-CA-0004-0042 | CJ-CA-0004-0043 | CJ-CA-0004-0045 | CJ-CA-0004-0046 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Hile, Norman C. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0048 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Kennedy, Sean Kevin (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Lam, Janice (Illinois)
CJ-CA-0004-0005 | CJ-CA-0004-0006 | CJ-CA-0004-0008 | CJ-CA-0004-0009 | CJ-CA-0004-0010 | CJ-CA-0004-0014 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Moniz, Leo (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0048 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Morrison, Kelly Marie (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Reinhart, Stephanie L. (Illinois)
CJ-CA-0004-0005 | CJ-CA-0004-0006 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Richardson-Royer, Elizabeth Hilda (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Rocconi, Margo Ann (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Senior , David Andrew (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0001 | CJ-CA-0004-0002 | CJ-CA-0004-0003 | CJ-CA-0004-0005 | CJ-CA-0004-0006 | CJ-CA-0004-0008 | CJ-CA-0004-0009 | CJ-CA-0004-0010 | CJ-CA-0004-0012 | CJ-CA-0004-0014 | CJ-CA-0004-0015 | CJ-CA-0004-0016 | CJ-CA-0004-0017 | CJ-CA-0004-0018 | CJ-CA-0004-0019 | CJ-CA-0004-0020 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-0025 | CJ-CA-0004-0026 | CJ-CA-0004-0027 | CJ-CA-0004-0028 | CJ-CA-0004-0029 | CJ-CA-0004-0030 | CJ-CA-0004-0035 | CJ-CA-0004-0036 | CJ-CA-0004-0037 | CJ-CA-0004-0040 | CJ-CA-0004-0042 | CJ-CA-0004-0043 | CJ-CA-0004-0045 | CJ-CA-0004-0046 | CJ-CA-0004-0049 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Spelman, Kate (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Steinken , Richard P. (Illinois)
CJ-CA-0004-0001 | CJ-CA-0004-0002 | CJ-CA-0004-0003 | CJ-CA-0004-0005 | CJ-CA-0004-0006 | CJ-CA-0004-0008 | CJ-CA-0004-0009 | CJ-CA-0004-0010 | CJ-CA-0004-0012 | CJ-CA-0004-0014 | CJ-CA-0004-0015 | CJ-CA-0004-0016 | CJ-CA-0004-0017 | CJ-CA-0004-0018 | CJ-CA-0004-0019 | CJ-CA-0004-0020 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-0025 | CJ-CA-0004-0026 | CJ-CA-0004-0027 | CJ-CA-0004-0028 | CJ-CA-0004-0029 | CJ-CA-0004-0030 | CJ-CA-0004-0035 | CJ-CA-0004-0036 | CJ-CA-0004-0037 | CJ-CA-0004-0040 | CJ-CA-0004-0042 | CJ-CA-0004-0043 | CJ-CA-0004-0045 | CJ-CA-0004-0046 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Tria, Ann−Kathryn Rose (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Weston, Benjamin David (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Anderson, Robert R. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0007 | CJ-CA-0004-0013
Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0044
Engler , Gerald A. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0007 | CJ-CA-0004-0013 | CJ-CA-0004-0024 | CJ-CA-0004-0032
Gillette , Dane R. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0007 | CJ-CA-0004-0013 | CJ-CA-0004-0015 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-0024 | CJ-CA-0004-0032 | CJ-CA-0004-0033 | CJ-CA-0004-0049 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Goldman, Jay M. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0044 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Graves, Mary Jo (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0024 | CJ-CA-0004-0032
Kirschenbauer, Marisa Yee (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Matthais, Ronald Stephen (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0007 | CJ-CA-0004-0013 | CJ-CA-0004-0022 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Matthias, Ronald Stephen (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0024 | CJ-CA-0004-0032 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
McClease, Kelly Lynn (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Patterson, Thomas S. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0044 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Quinn, Michael James (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0044 | CJ-CA-0004-9000 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Other Lawyers Cuomo, Dianna Lynn (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Eurie, Stacy Boulware (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0033 | CJ-CA-0004-0034
Ferreira, Brentford Joseph (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Gevercer, Steven Mark (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0033 | CJ-CA-0004-0034 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Hanisee, Michele A. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Krishnan, Ajay (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0039 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Lach, Jo Ann (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Laurence , Michael David (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Millman, Michael G. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Moran, Patrick Denis (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Olson, Karl (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Park, Ann Hyanghun (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Renner, Jonathon K. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0033 | CJ-CA-0004-0034
Risher , Michael Temple (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0039
Schlosser, Alan Lawrence (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0039
Sheldon, Barbara Louise (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000
Streeter, Jon B. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0039 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Thurm, Wendy J. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-0039 | CJ-CA-0004-9000
Wilcox, Rochelle L. (California)
CJ-CA-0004-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -