Case 3:22-cv-01810-EMC Document 21 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 3

1 Arthur S. Gaus, Esq. SBN 289560

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
2 425 California Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104
3 PHONE: 415.926.7600
FAX: 415.926.7601
4 EMAIL: agaus@kdvlaw.com
5 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF SAUSALITO
6 UNITED STARTES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9
HALEY ALLEN, Case No. 3:22-cv-01810-EMC
10
DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S
Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO DECLARATION OF
11
PLAINTIFF HALEY ALLEN
12 v.

13 CITY OF SAUSALITO, et. al.

14
Defendants.
15

16

17
I. INTRODUCTION
18
Pursuant to the court's April 1, 2022 order [ECF Dkt No. 19], Defendant City of Sausalito
19
(“Defendant”) files the instant response to the April 1, 2022 declaration [ECF Dkt No. 18, hereinafter
20
the “Declaration”] filed by Plaintiff Haley Allen (“Plaintiff”).
21
II. BACKGROUND
22
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on March 22, 2022 [ECF Dkt No. 1] alleging a battery of civil rights
23
violations against Defendant. The same day, Plaintiff filed an application for a temporary restraining
24

25
order and preliminary injunction (“TRO Application”) [ECF Dkt. No 5]. The Complaint and TRO

26 allege violations relating to the towing of Plaintiff’s vehicle for unpaid parking tickets and the alleged

27 exclusion of plaintiff from the temporary encampment at Marinship Park in Sausalito (the “Marinship

28 Encampment”). Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks an injunction granting Plaintiff access to her vehicle to get

1.

DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S RESPONSE

TO DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF HALEY ALLEN
 Case 3:22-cv-01810-EMC Document 21 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 3

1 her belongings, the release of her vehicle pending an administrative hearing on her parking tickets and
2 permission to camp somewhere in Sausalito. [Complaint, p. 5, Section V] The TRO Application does
3 not contain any request for relief, specifically but restates the same factual narrative as the Complaint.
4 The case was initially assigned to Judge William H. Orrick who held a preliminary hearing on
5 March 28, 2022. Following the March 28, 2022 preliminary hearing, Judge Orrick ordered Defendant
6 to permit Plaintiff to access her vehicle to access her belongings, allow her to access the Marinship
7
Encampment to visit her mother. [ECF Dkt No. 8] The Court also orders the Parties to meet and confer
8
on the release of Plaintiff’s vehicle but did expressly did not order the release of Plaintiff’s vehicle.
9
Immediately following the Court’s Minute Order, this matter was reassigned to this Court.
10
Subsequently, the Parties were ordered to appear at an April 12, 2022 settlement conferenced before
11
Judge Robert Illman.
12
III. ALLEN DECLARATION REFLECTS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PARTIES
13
MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS AND DOES NOT ALLEGE ANY NONCOMPLIANCE
14
WITH THE MARCH 29 MINUTE ORDER
15
In summary, Plaintiff’s declaration notes that Defendants have been actively meeting and
16
conferring with Plaintiff on the release of her vehicle. The declaration notes that Plaintiff has received
17
financial assistance with respect to the approximately $1,700.00 in unpaid parking tickets relating to
18
her vehicle. The declaration further notes that, through a series of phone calls, the Sausalito Police
19
Department waived the normal $195.00 fee for the release of vehicles. Plaintiff’s declaration does not
20
allege that she has been denied access to her vehicle to fetch her belongings or barred from visiting her
21
mother at the Marinship Encampment. In short, the Declaration documents the Parties’ compliance
22

23
with the March 29, Minute Order.

24
Plaintiff appears to object to the April 12, 2022 Settlement Conference and seeks the

25 immediate release of her vehicle. This relief is outside the scope of the Minute Order. Further, to the

26 extent that Plaintiff objects to any conditions placed upon the waiver of normal towing or impound

27 fees (i.e. the community service requirements described in the Declaration) she does not articulate a

28

2.

DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S RESPONSE

TO DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF HALEY ALLEN
 Case 3:22-cv-01810-EMC Document 21 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 3

1 clear basis for why such conditions are unlawful, improper or unreasonable. Additionally, Plaintiff
2 does not state how or why continued meet and confer efforts are inappropriate or fruitless.
3 Reading Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis Declaration as a whole, it appears that Plaintiff simply wants
4 this Court to modify the March 29 Minute Order to grant her all the relief she initially sought through
5 her Complaint without the burden of having to continue to meet and confer with Defendant any
6 further. Defendant objects to such relief as it effectively negates its ability to engage in common-sense
7
parking and traffic enforcement in the vicinity of the Marinship Encampment specifically, and the City
8
of Sausalito generally.
9
IV. CONCLUSION
10
Defendant will continue to meet and confer with Plaintiff on the release of her vehicle, but will
11
not release the vehicle free and clear at the present time, absent an order from this Court mandating the
12
release of the vehicle. Furthermore, to the extent the Parties cannot reach an agreement on the release
13
of Plaintiff’s vehicle in advance of the April 12, 2022 settlement conference, Defendant will appear
14
and comply with all future directives from this Court.
15

16
Dated: April 5, 2022
17
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
18

19

20

21 _____________________________________
Arthur S. Gaus, Esq.
22 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SAUSALITO
23

24

25

26

27

28

3.

DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S RESPONSE

TO DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF HALEY ALLEN