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.

Chris Vasquez, et al. v. County of Los Angeles

November 2, 2012

CHRIS VASQUEZ, ET AL.
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

#154/158

JS-6 (lc)

Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers): Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Individual Defendants and Dismissing State Law Claims

In an October 3, 2012 order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court concluded that the Individual Defendants were, as a matter of law, not acting under color of law when they engaged in the physical altercation at issue in the case.

Dkt. # 153. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as against the County of Los Angeles ("County"), Sheriff Leroy Baca ("Baca"), and Individual Defendants Hernan Noel Delgado ("Delgado") and Juan Navarro ("Navarro"), who were joined in the motion. Given that the analysis for those claims is identical for the other Individual Defendants, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact on their first and fifth claims against all defendants-specifically, Individual Defendants Alfonso Andrade ("Andrade"), Joseph Gonzalez ("Gonzales"), Jeffrey Rivera ("Rivera"), Mauricio Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), and Jason Snyder ("Snyder"). However, the Court could not grant summary judgment as to the other Individual Defendants at that time because it had not given notice of its intent to do so, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) ("After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a non-movant."). Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause ("OSC") why the Court should not grant summary judgment on Plaintiff's first and fifth claims as to the remaining Individual Defendants. See Dkt. # 154.

On October 19, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a timely response to the Court's OSC. See Dkt. # 158. In its Response, Plaintiffs submitted additional evidence that was not available when the Court heard Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See Response. Plaintiffs argue that the new evidence creates a question of fact regarding whether the Individual Defendants were acting under color of law during the altercation. Id. 2:1-9. Plaintiffs state that ...


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.