Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Arroyo v. Cameron

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 10, 2009

LUIS ARROYO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEFF CAMERON, UNIT COMMANDER, CA DEPT. OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT; BRANDON OLIVERA, CITY OF ROCKLIN POLICE OFFICE; SCOTT BRYAN, PLACER COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF; DAVE BROSE, PLACER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INVESTIGATOR; KEN ADDISON, PLACER COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF; BEN MACHADO, PLACER COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF; RAD T. COULTER, GROUP SUPERVISOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; REBECCA TAYLOR, SPECIAL AGENT DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; DAVID KLINGMAN, SPECIAL AGENT DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; ALICIA RAMIREZ, SPECIAL AGENT DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; KATIE DORIAS, SPECIAL AGENT, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; AND OMAR BERSAMINA, SPECIAL AGENT, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

A hearing was held March 9, 2009, on Defendants Rad Coulter ("Coulter"), Katie Dorais ("Dorais"), Rebecca Taylor ("Taylor"), David Klingman ("Klingman"), Alicia Ramirez ("Ramirez"), and Omar Bersamina's ("Bersamina") (collectively "Federal Defendants") respective motions for summary judgment; and on Plaintiff's request to continue these motions under Federal Rule of Procedure 56(f).

A tentative ruling issued in favor of all Federal Defendants on February 26, 2009. On March 2, 2009, the Federal Defendants filed a request for leave to file a second supplemental declaration, attached to which is discovery argued to be relevant to the pending motions. This request is granted. However, since the second supplemental declaration is an untimely filing and fails to comply with Local Rule 56-260, each Federal Defendant's motion filed December 19, 2008, is stricken. This ruling renders Plaintiff's motion under Rule 56(f) for a continuance of each Federal Defendant's motion moot; therefore, Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) request is denied.

Further, each Federal Defendant's motion for a protective order, filed January 9, 2009, is denied since it is based on a qualified immunity motion which is no longer pending.

20090310

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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