Blair

Blair v. Shanahan

Bad Law
795 F. Supp. 309·92 Daily Journal DAR 7671·1992 WL 119011·23 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1035·1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7519
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 12, 1992C-89-4176 WHOCalifornia5,682 words

Opinion

Opinion

Orrick, J.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Celestas Blair, Jr. (“Blair”), is a former panhandler. He brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of § 647(c) of the California Penal Code and enforcement of this statute by defendants under the United States and California Constitutions. On September 24, 1991, this Court issued an Opinion and Order (“Opinion”) declaring § 647(c) facially unconstitutional under the federal constitution. Blair v, Shanahan, 775 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D.Cal.1991). Under that Opinion, several remaining issues were reserved for resolution by trial or settlement of the parties. On December 6, 1991, defendant City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that was unconditionally accepted by Blair on December 10, 1991. On January 2, 1992, judgment was entered in this case pursuant to the Rule 68 offer of judgment. In the motion presently before this Court, the City moves under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to modify or vacate that judgment. The Court denies the City’s motion because it finds that: (1) the accepted offer of judgment represents a meeting of the minds of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.