From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilman v. Brown

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 2, 2011
NO. CIV. S-05-830 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2011)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-05-830 LKK/GGH.

September 2, 2011


ORDER


On August 17, 2011, the court denied Darrel King and Timothy Leang Jones' motion for permissive joinder. (Doc. No. 361). On August 29, 2011, Mr. King and Mr. Jones filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 364). In essence, they are arguing that this court should make them class representatives. If, as they contend, Mr. King and Mr. Jones are class members and, thus, they do not need to notify the court — Mr. King's and Mr. Jones's interests are already represented in this action as class members. No action is required of the court to allow Mr. King and Mr. Jones to obtain relief, if any, through this class action.

Mr. King and Mr. Jones are free to contact class counsel with any concerns about the case. The court has certified the class action and class counsel, thus, represent all members of the class. Class counsel are available at the following addresses:

Daniel J. Broderick
Monica Knox
David M. Porter
Office of the Federal Defender
801 I Street
3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Carter Capps White
King Hall Civil Rights Clinic
UC Davis School of Law
One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB 30
Davis, CA 95616

The court reiterates that Mr. King and Mr. Jones need not take any action to be considered class members. All individuals who fall within the class definition are class members. Absent any suggestion by Mr. King and Mr. Jones that class counsel are not adequately representing their interests, the court will not take any further action on their concerns.

Further, the court denies Mr. King and Mr. Jones' request for an interlocutory appeal. Again, the court reiterates that Mr. King and Mr. Jones need not take any action in order to benefit from relief, if any, from the class action if they are indeed class members.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. King and Mr. Jones's motion for reconsideration and request for an interlocutory appeal (Doc. No. 364) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve this order upon Mr. King and Mr. Jones at the addresses listed on the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2011.


Summaries of

Gilman v. Brown

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 2, 2011
NO. CIV. S-05-830 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Gilman v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD M. GILMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND J. BROWN, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 2, 2011

Citations

NO. CIV. S-05-830 LKK/GGH (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2011)