UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
November 5, 2009
JON M. LEFEBVRE, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, SHERIFF DEPUTY D. LEWEY (BADGE NO. 407387) IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, SERGEANT MCGALLEY (BADGE NO. 404320), INVESTIGATING OFFICER T. COOLEY (BADGE NO. 284951), ALICE LEFEBVRE, NANCY TOOTHMAN, AND DOE 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, EACH OF WHOM IS SUED INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Honorable A. Howard Matz
Action Filed: June 9, 2008
Trial Date: January 12, 2010
JUDGMENT ON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DATE: November 2, 2009
The motion of Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPUTY DAVID LEWEY, DETECTIVE TIMOTHY COOLEY, and SGT. NANCY McGAULEY (hereinafter "County Defendants") for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, came on regularly for hearing by the Court, the Honorable A. Howard Matz, Judge Presiding, on November 2, 2009. Laura E. Inlow of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP appeared on behalf of the moving defendants. Etan Lorant, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff JON M. LEFEBVRE.
After full consideration of the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the documents and pleadings submitted, the admissible evidence and separate statements of both parties, defendants' evidentiary objections and the oral arguments of counsel, for the reasons herein, and good cause appearing, this court finds there is no triable issue of material fact and that defendants are entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons:
1. All state claims, including the third cause of action for false arrest and imprisonment, the fourth cause of action for negligence, the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the sixth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 52.1, are hereby dismissed for plaintiff's failure to submit a governmental tort claim with the County of Los Angeles prior to filing suit;
2. The first cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 directed to the County of Los Angeles is dismissed as there is no evidence of a policy or custom on behalf of the County of Los Angeles which caused a violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Moreover, as there was no constitutional violation as to plaintiff, there can be no liability as to the County of Los Angeles; and
3. The second cause of action based on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 aimed at the three individually named defendants is dismissed because defendants had probable cause for the arrest of plaintiff and, even if there was no probable cause, all three defendants enjoy qualified immunity.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff shall take nothing by reason of his complaint against defendants.
HONORABLE A. HOWARD MATZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.