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.

Kristal Madrid, Individually, and As v. City of Fresno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 11, 2011

KRISTAL MADRID, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PEDRO MADRID
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FRESNO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; JERRY DYER, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO; JUAN GURROLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO; JUSTIN BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO; MONTY LEWIS JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO; GEORGE VALDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO; FRANK MENDOZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO; DOES 6-100, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO. DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES, DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE (DOCS. 46, 65)

This matter came on regularly for hearing on February 7, 2011 in Courtroom 3 before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. Benjamin Nisenbaum appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Mildred K. O'Linn appeared on behalf of Defendants. Following oral argument, the Court took the matter under submission.

The Court has reviewed and considered the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication of the Issues, Defendants' Objections and Motion to Strikeand any Opposition thereto and makes the following orders: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: SECTION 1983 CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS

1. Fourth Amendment Claim

a. Defendant Lewis

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on theFourth Amendment claim against Defendant Lewis on the grounds of qualified immunity is DENIED; b. Defendants Gurrola, Valdez, and Mendoza Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants Gurrola, Valdez, and Mendoza on the grounds of qualified immunity is DENIED c. Defendant Bell Defendants' motion for summary on the Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Bell on the grounds of qualified immunity is DENIED;

2. Fourteenth Amendment Claim

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment Claim is GRANTED.

B. SECTION 1983 CLAIMS AGAINST CHIEF OF POLICE JERRY DYER AND CITY OF FRESNO

1. Second Cause of Action: Supervisory Liability

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action is GRANTED. 2. Third Cause of Action: Monell Liability Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action is GRANTED.

C. STATE LAW CLAIMS

1. Immunity under California Government Code §§ 820.2 and 820.4

Defendants' motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff's state law claims on the grounds of immunity is DENIED.

2. Fourth Cause of Action:

Assault, Battery Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Officer Defendants on the fourth cause of action is DENIED.

3. Fifth Cause of Action: The Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51.7)

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the fifth cause of action is GRANTED.

4. Sixth Cause of Action: The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 52.1)

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the sixth cause of action is DENIED.

5. Seventh Cause of Action: Negligence-Wrongful Death

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the seventh cause of actionis DENIED.

6. Eighth Cause of Action: Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, Supervision, and Discipline

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the eighth cause of action is GRANTED.

D. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants' Objection and Motion to Strike are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110311

© 1992-2011 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.