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.

Andrew Contasti, An Individual v. City of Solana Beach

July 9, 2012

ANDREW CONTASTI, AN INDIVIDUAL;
ANNETTE CONTASTI, AN INDIVIDUAL; JOE HERNANDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 45) filed by Plaintiff Andrew Contasti.

I. Background

On June 25, 2009, Plaintiffs Andrew Contasti, Annette Contasti, and Joe Hernandez, represented by counsel, initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On November 11, 2009, the Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9).

On January 20, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14). On January 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of due process and equal protection. (ECF No. 15).

On February 12, 2010, Defendant City of Solana Beach filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 17). On August 25, 2010, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23).

On September 14, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer. (ECF No. 24).

On April 29, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (ECF No. 32). Plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (ECF No. 36). With regard to the due process claim, the Court stated: "Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, despite an opportunity to do so. Plaintiffs have not shown that there are genuine issues for trial that preclude summary judgment." Id. at 6. The Court concluded that the claim for violation of due process was barred. With regard to the equal protection claim, the Court found "that Defendant has carried its burden pursuant to Rule 56 and Plaintiffs have not shown that there are genuine issues for trial that preclude summary judgment." Id. at 7. The Court concluded that the claim for deprivation of equal protection was barred.

On July 27, 2011, the Clerk of the Court issued a Judgment against Plaintiffs Andrew Contasti, Annette Contasti, and Joe Hernandez. (ECF No. 37).

On January 24, 2012, Plaintiff Andrew Contasti filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff stated that he was "bringing [the Motion for Relief from Judgment] on behalf of himself and plaintiffs Annette Contasti and Joe Hernandez, in pro se, due to the fact that Mr. Jacobsen [their counsel of record] is incapacitated and cannot prepare this motion nor sign a substitution of attorney at this time." Id. at 13. Plaintiff Annette Contasti filed a declaration and a notice of joinder to the Motion for Relief from Judgment. Plaintiff Joe Hernandez filed a declaration and a notice of joinder to the Motion for Relief from Judgment. Plaintiffs Andrew Contasti, Annette Contasti, and Joe Hernandez have also filed consent orders for substitution pursuant to Local Rule 83.3, stating that they will represent themselves in this action.

On February 10, 2012, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 47). On February 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Declaration.

(ECF No. 49).

II. Contentions of the ...


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.