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.

Abarca v. County of Madera Irrigation District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 18, 2009

ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COUNTY OF MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE CITY OF MERCED FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, MERCED (DOC. 283), AND (DOC. 263), ET AL.'S (DOC. 273), AND MOTION TO DISMISS STATE LAW DISTRICT'S (DOC. 284) FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO CLAIMS AS TO CERTAIN CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT TO DISMISS THE THIRTEENTH TORT CLAIMS ACT AND MOTION ENTITY DEFENDANTS.

MAINTENANCE AGAINST PUBLIC

Before the court for decision are separate motions to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by the City of Merced ("City"), Doc. 263, County of Merced ("County"), Doc. 283, Merced Irrigation District, et al. ("MID"), Doc. 273, and Franklin County Water District ("FCWD"), Doc. 284, asserting that: (1) certain state law claims brought by certain Plaintiffs should be dismissed for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act's ("CTCA") claim presentation requirement; and (2) that the thirteenth claim for negligent maintenance against the City, the County, and MID should be dismissed because the CTCA bars claims for common law tort liability against public entities. Although the four motions raise identical grounds and cite identical legal authority, they attach separate, unique lists of Plaintiffs from whom each moving public entity claims it never received relevant CTCA claims.

Plaintiffs oppose the motions, arguing: (1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g), the public entity defendants are estopped from raising the arguments set forth in their motions, as those arguments could have and should have been raised in their prior Rule 12 motions; (2) the court's judicial resources should not be wasted reviewing these motions, which could have been avoided through good faith meet and confer efforts; (3) Defendants should not benefit from an "expedited" briefing schedule; (4) even if the court were to take judicial notice of the thousands of claims presented by defendants, their motions must nonetheless be denied as they fail to establish that no other claims were filed by the same plaintiffs; and (5) in the event the court intends to rule on the substantive merits of Defendants' motions to dismiss under the CTCA, Plaintiffs request a 60-day extension to provide a substantive response. Doc. 311.

At oral argument, the parties agreed to attempt to resolve these motions by stipulation. Accordingly, the motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should the parties fail to reach agreement, Defendants may re-notice their motions.

SO ORDERED

20090518

© 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.