No Pepper Spray on Nonviolent Protesters
www.nopepperspray.orgVernell Lundberg, et al. vs. County of Humboldt, et al.
former short case title was
Headwaters Forest Defense, et al. vs. County of Humboldt, et al.Legal Documents Index Page
(updated 12.8.05)
Please visit our home page for news related to this litigation.
Most documents linked here are PDF files that require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader from www.adobe.comNewest documents are usually listed first.
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Amount of Attorneys Fees and Expenses (filed 9.16.2005, posted here 9.19.05)
Our plaintiffs' motion for a specific amount of attorneys fees and expenses was filed September 16, 2005, with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the trial court.
The twenty-four page document concludes: "Plaintiffs believe that an award of $1,995,490.69 in attorneys’ fees, plus $84,029.55 for nontaxable expenses, is reasonable under the circumstances of this case."
Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion For an Amount of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (filed 9.16.05) 165 KB PDF file posted 9.19.05
Notice of Appeal by Defendants
Civil Appeals Docketing Statement (Defendants Notice of Appeal, Sept. 7, 2005, 105 KB PDF file posted 9.16.05)
Time Schedule Order - Briefing Schedule, Sept. 12, 2005 - (91 KB PDF file posted 9.15.05)
Judge Grants Attorney Fees Entitlement Motion, Denies Defendants' Post-Trial Motions (8/11/05)
In an order filed August 9, 2005, Judge Susan Illston granted our motion for entitlement to attorneys fees. She also denied defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Both sides stipulated in advance to bifurcate (separate) the issue of whether we are entitled to have defendants pay our attorneys' fees from the issue of how much the fees should be. Now that we have won the first question, the next step will be to file a motion for how much.
Order Re: Post-Trial Motions and Plaintiffs' Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees (filed 8.9.05, 344 KB PDF file posted 8.11.05)
Plaintiffs' Motion For Entitlement to Attorney's Fees (7/4/05)
Our legal team has filed a brief setting out the facts, the law and arguments supporting our entitlement to having defendants Humboldt County and City of Eureka pay our reasonable attorneys' fees for eight years of litigation. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees was filed with the court June 30, and is set for a hearing on Friday July 29, 2005 at 9 AM.
Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (filed 6.30.05, 240K PDF file, revised file posted 7.05.05)
Declaration of Plaintiff Vernell Lundberg In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Entitlement to Attorney's Fees (filed 6.30.05, 46K PDF file)
Declaration of Sophia S. Cope In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees (filed 6.30.05, 58K PDF file posted 7.5.05)
Affidavit of Larry P. Danaher (filed 6.30.05, 30K PDF file posted 7.6.05)
Declaration of Peter A. Reedy (filed 6.30.05, 55K PDF file posted 7.6.05)
Below are six additional papers filed July 20, 2005 related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees
Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entitlement To Attorney's Fees (147K PDF file posted 7.20.05)
Declaration of Mark P. Harris in Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Entitlement To Attorney's Fees (36K PDF file posted 7.20.05)
Supplemental Declaration of Sophia S. Cope in Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Entitlement To Attorney's Fees (41K PDF file posted 7.20.05)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Motion For Entitlement to Attorney's Fees (72K PDF file posted 7.20.05)
Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence Submitted by Defendants in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Entitlement to Attorney's Fees (34K PDF file posted 7.20.05)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Costs Objections (52K PDF file posted 7.20.05)
Post-Trial Motions - Defendants Seek to Overturn Verdict (6/3/05)
Lawyers for the defendants filed a post-trial motion asking the judge to throw out the unanimous jury verdict of excessive force and either decide the case for them as a matter of law (like the first judge in the case erroneously did before he was overruled by the Court of Appeals) or grant them a new trial.
Our lawyers filed our opposition to the defense motion and own post-trial motions reviving our previously denied motion for an injunction barring the use of pepper spray torture on non-violent locked down protesters.
The hearing on these post-trial motions is set for Friday, July 29, 2005 at 9 AM.
Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motions and Opposition to Defendants' Motion For Judgment or A New Trial filed 5.31.05 (381K PDF file)
Jury Instructions (361 KB PDF file posted here 5.8.05)
California Atty. General's Motion For Order Quashing Subpoena to 1997 Atty. General Dan Lungren. (334 KB PDF file, requires Acrobat Reader to view) (posted 4/22/05)
Final Pre-Trial Motions and Orders For Third Trial (posted here 4.6.05)
Final Pre-Trial Scheduling Order issued 4.4.05
The order covers rulings on motions in limine, number of jurors, peremptory challenges, jury selection, trial exhibits, timing of trial, trial schedule, and witness notice requirements.
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion In Limine to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiffs' Expert Bouza filed 3.19.05
Plaintiffs' Notice of Pretrial Submissions filed 3.18.05
This is a short "cover letter" listing the several other documents filed on the same date (linked below), noting if there are changes from the corresponding documents filed prior to the previous trial.
Attachments to above Notice
Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury InstructionsPlaintiffs' Trial Brief filed 3.18.05
A passionately written statement by lead Plaintiffs' counsel Dennis Cunningham of the factual background and procedural history of the case, the Plaintiff's claims and arguments supporting them.
Plaintiffs' Motions In Limine filed 3.18.05
Motions In Limine seek to exclude or limit witnesses and subjects of testimony by the other side.
Joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement filed 3.18.05
Agreed to by both sides, this document states what the trial is about, the places and dates of the incidents which gave rise to the suit, the undisputed facts, the disputed factual issues from each side's view, the legal issues from each side's view, and other details.
Plaintiffs' Witness List filed 3.18.05
Plaintiffs' Exhibit List filed 3.18.05
Motions heard on Thursday, March 3, 2005
Plaintiffs Motion For Revision of Order and Other Relief filed 1.14.05
Plaintiffs' Motion for Expanded Voir Dire filed 1.14.05
Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Questionnaire filed 1.14.05
Post-trial motions heard on Friday, November 12, 2004,
Order for Briefing on Qualified Immunity filed 10.7.04
Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motions filed 10.8.04
Defendants' Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motions filed 10.21.04
Declaration of William F. Mitchell and Attached Exhibits in Opposition to Plaintiffs Post-Trial Motions filed 10.21.04
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Post-Trial Motions and Response to the Court's Order re: Qualified Immunity filed 10.25.04
Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants' Post-Trial Motions filed 10.29.04
Defendants' Supplemental Briefing on Qualified Immunity filed 10.29.04
Plaintiffs' Reply on the Post-Trial Motions filed 11.1.04
Note: Documents below relate to pre-trial motions and appeals filed long before our September 2004 second trial in San Francisco Federal Court. They appear in reverse chronological order.
Opposition to Defendants' Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court (2 /21/04)
Our legal team has filed their brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to the defendants' appeal seeking to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling ordering Judge Vaughn Walker removed from our case for "lack of the appearance of impartiality" and reversing Walker's relocation of retrial to Eureka. The document is available for viewing or download as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file.
Click to read Opposition to Petition for Certiorari (289 KB)
9th Circuit Grants Our Writ! (posted 9/2/03)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' Order filed 9/2/03 grants our (plaintiffs') petition for a writ of mandamus, reassigns the case to another judge, and restores the case to San Francisco for a new trial.
Click here to read the 9th Circuit's ruling (PDF file, 104KB)Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of their Petition for Writ of Mandamus, etc. filed 6/2/03 (PDF file, 50KB)
Stay order issued May 8, 2003 by the 9th Circuit delays our trial pending decision on our Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 5/8/03 (PDF file)
Emergency Motion to Consider and Decide Petition for Writ of Mandamus on Shortened Time filed 5/6/03 (PDF file)
List of Exhibits to Petition for Writ of Mandamus ... (PDF file)
Order Denying Motion for Recusal of Judge Walker filed 4/23/03 (PDF file) posted 5/13/03
Order Denying Motion re Situs of Trial filed 4/30/03 (PDF file) posted 5/13/03
This appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal relates to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal and the Plaintiff's Motion re Situs of Trial (listed and linked below) which are included with their supporting documents as exhibits with the appeal.
Seeks to remove Judge Vaughn Walker for bias against plaintiffs.Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Bias and Prejudice (PDF file)
Plaintiff Spring Lundberg says Judge Vaughn Walker is biased against plaintiffs.
Seeks to move location of trial back to San Francisco, where first trial was held.Declarations Supporting Motion re Situs of Trial (PDF file, 245KB)
Sworn statements by attorney Tony Serra and others including elected officials attesting to the extreme degree of polarization and hostility in the Humboldt County community against environmental activists and their lawyers.Supporting Exhibits - Newspaper articles and editorials
A compilation of articles and editorials from the Eureka Times-Standard, Santa Rosa Press Democrat and San Francisco Chronicle about the political polarization and turmoil over environmental issues in Humboldt County.The evidence includes Pacific Lumber propaganda TV and radio commercials and newspaper ads portraying nonviolent activists like our plaintiffs as "ecoterrorists" to be feared and loathed by decent citizens. You can listen to an MP3 file of the radio version of the 60 second spot from a link on our Audio Page.
View Pacific Lumber's full-page newspaper ad placed in the Eureka Times-Standard to whip up fear against forest activists. Courtesy of Alliance for Ethical Business. (726KB PDF file)
Plaintiffs' Trial Brief filed 4/14/03 (PDF file)
Summarizes the case history, claims and case law.Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF file) filed 2/20/03, denied by court
Plaintiffs' Settlement Offer Letter, Jan. 31, 2003 (rejected by defendants)
All links below are to archived pages in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and they will open in a new window. Close the new window to return to viewing this page.
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, 1997 (The original, not the current version)
Declaration of Jennifer Schneider in Support of Application for TRO, 1997
Declarations of Vernell "Spring" M. Lundberg and Nancie Voege in Support of Application for TRO, 1997
Declarations of Maya Portugal and Noel Tendick in Support of Application for TRO, 1997