Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Akhtarshad v. City of Corona

February 10, 2009

REZA AKHTARSHAD, AYAKO AKHTARSHAD, AND R. A., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM REZA AKHTARSHAD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY OF CORONA, THE CORONA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND BEAU CHRISTIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CORONA POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips, United States District Judge

[Motion filed on January 9, 2009]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants City of Corona, the Corona City Police Department, and Beau Christian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 9, 2009. Plaintiffs Reza Akhtarshad, Ayoka Akhtarshad, and R. A., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Reza Akhtarshad, filed no timely Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Reza Akhtarshad, Ayoka Akhtarshad, and R. A., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Reza Akhtarshad, filed a Complaint on March 5, 2008 against Defendants the City of Corona, the Corona City Police Department, and Beau Christian ("Officer Christian"), individually and in his capacity as an employee of the Corona City Police Department. The Complaint contains the following claims, by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants:

* The first claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, for intentional racial discrimination. (Compl. at ¶¶ 48-53.)

* The second claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, for intentional racial discrimination. (Compl. at ¶¶ 54-57.)

* The third claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment,*fn1 and the Fourteenth Amendment, for intentional racial discrimination, "the unlawful use of force, assault, battery, arrest, detention, conspiracy, imprisonment, prosecution, racial and ethnic profiling, interference with right to patronize businesses and denial of equal protection." (Compl. at ¶¶ 58-62.)

* The fourth claim for violation of California Civil Code §§ 51, 51.7, 52, 52.1, and 52.3, for intentional racial discrimination, "the unlawful use of force, assault, battery, arrest, detention, conspiracy, imprisonment, prosecution, racial and ethnic profiling, interference with right to patronize businesses and denial of equal protection." (Compl. at ¶¶ 63-67.)

* The fifth claim for committing the California tort of "unlawful use of force, detention, arrest, and prosecution." (Compl. at ¶ 68-69.)

* The sixth claim for committing the California tort of "assault and battery." (Compl. at ¶ 70-71.)

* The seventh claim for committing the California tort of "child endangerment." (Compl. at ¶ 72-73.)

* The eighth claim for committing the California tort of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." (Compl. at ¶ 74-75.)

* The ninth claim for committing the California tort of "loss of affection/consortium." (Compl. at ¶ 76-77.)

On July 31, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which removed claims five through nine of the original Complaint.

On January 9, 2009, Defendants filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Issues" ("Motion") as to all of Plaintiffs' claims, the Declaration of Kelly R. M. Irwin ("Irwin Declaration"), with Exhibits A through O attached, including the manual filing of Exhibits A and B, and a "Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law" ("SUF").

Defendants noticed the Motion for a hearing date of February 2, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Under Local Rule 7-9, a party must file Opposition papers no later than 14 days before the date designated for the hearing of the Motion. As January 19, 2009 was a Court holiday, Plaintiffs' Opposition was due on January 16, 2009. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel and have filed no timely Opposition, as of the date of this Order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party must show that "under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.

Generally, the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that it is entitled to summary judgment. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir. 1998); Retail Clerks Union Local 648 v. Hub Pharmacy, Inc., 707 F.2d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 1983). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying the elements of the claim or defense and evidence that it believes demonstrates the absence of an issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

When the non-moving party has the burden at trial, however, the moving party need not produce evidence negating or disproving every essential element of the non-moving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Instead, the moving party's burden is met by pointing out there is an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's case. Id.

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The non-moving party must make an affirmative showing on all matters placed in issue by the motion as to which it has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; see also ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.