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.

Therese Arizmendi v. City of San Jose

November 9, 2012

THERESE ARIZMENDI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Court United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Re: Docket No. 144]

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff Therese Arizmendi ("Plaintiff") has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bringing several claims of various constitutional violations against the City of San Jose, San 20 Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, and thirteen police officers and sergeants (collectively 21 "Defendants"). The lawsuit arises out of an incident that took place on January 27, 2008 involving 22 Plaintiff and several of the Defendant officers. 23

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. See Docket Item No. 144. Federal Jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has 25 carefully reviewed the parties' papers for this matter, and for the reasons explained below, 26 Defendants' motion will be granted. 27 28

1.Background

1.1Factual Background

The Court will refer to a previous Order by Judge James Ware granting Defendants' Motion 4 for Summary Judgment to provide a summary of the undisputed facts of this case: 5

On January 27, 2008, the San Jose Police department received a 911 call from 6 two men who claimed that a man had "pulled a gun" on them that appeared to be an AK-47. The 911 callers reported that the man had clicked the gun as though he was 7 loading it while stating that "he was going to get [the two men]." [Declaration of Daisy M. Nishigaya, Docket Item No. 106, Ex. 10 (Official Transcript of the 911 8 Call) at 1.] When asked where the man with the gun was at present, the caller 9 reported that the gunman was "at home" at "556 N. 16th Street" in a "two story" home, "two houses down" from "544 N. 16th Street" with "black trucks out front," 10 describing in detail Plaintiffs' residence. (Id. at 1, 3, 4.) When asked, "In the house?" the caller responded affirmatively, "Yeah." (Id. at 3.)

A few minutes after the call, Defendant Officers arrived at Plaintiffs' home at 556 N. 16th Street and set up a perimeter to investigate. [Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 12 at 3, Docket Item No. 105; Memo. in Opp'n re Mot. for Summ. J. at 3, Docket Item 13 No. 115.] Some time after Defendant Officers arrived, Plaintiff Arizmendi exited the home, entered a black Lincoln Navigator SUV and proceeded to drive down the 14 street. (Id.; Id.) Defendant Officers stopped Plaintiff Arizmendi's vehicle shortly after she had begun to drive away from the residence. (Id.; Id.) Defendant Officers 15 searched Plaintiff Arizmendi's person and inside the vehicle, placed her in handcuffs and held her in custody for a period of time. (Id. at 4; Id. at 4.)

Defendant Officers then arrested Plaintiff Arizmendi's husband and, on notice 17 that eleven-month-old Baby Arizmendi was asleep inside the house, entered the home. (Motion at 4; Opp'n at 4-5.) Defendant Officers undertook multiple searches 18 of the home and located two guns, an unloaded rifle and a loaded handgun. (Id. at 5; Id. at 5-6.) During the searches, Plaintiff Arizmendi requested that Defendant 19 Officers reunite her with Baby Arizmendi, and Defendant Officers complied after locating the infant in an upstairs bedroom. (Id.; Id.) 20 Arizmendi v. City of San Jose, No. C 08-05163 JW, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010), Docket Item 21 No. 128 (hereinafter "Ware Order"). 22 23

1.2Procedural History

On November 13, 2008 Plaintiff filed her Complaint with this Court. The named defendants 25 were the City of San Jose, San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, Sergeant Bennett, Sergeant Pate, 26 Sergeant Imobersteg, Sergeant Boyle, Officer R. Vaughn, Officer C. Parente, Officer Lutticken, 27 28

Cause of Action

Plaintiff(s)

Defendant(s)

First

Monell (Policy or Practice; Alleging Violations of Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment Rights and "Excessive Force")

Arizmendi and Baby

San Jose

Second

Monell (Acts of Chief as Final Policymaker; Alleging Violations of Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment Rights and "Excessive Force")

Arizmendi and Baby

San Jose

Third

Monell (Ratification by Chief Davis as Final Policymaker; Alleging Violations of Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment Rights and "Excessive Force")

Arizmendi and Baby

San Jose

Fourth

Monell (Failure to Train; Alleging Violations of Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment Rights and "Excessive Force")

Arizmendi and Baby

San Jose

Fifth

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Violations under a Supervisory Theory of Liability)

Arizmendi and Baby

Davis; Bennett; Pate; Imobersteg; Boyle

Sixth

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Alleging Violations of Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment Rights and "Excessive Force")

Arizmendi and Baby

All Officers

Seventh

False Arrest

Arizmendi and Baby

Vaughn; Lutticken; Bennett; Cook; Sit

Eighth

False Imprisonment

Arizmendi and Baby

Vaughn; Lutticken; Bennett; Cook; Sit

Ninth

Assault

Arizmendi

Vaughn

Tenth

Battery

Arizmendi

Vaughn; Lutticken

Officer Ordaz, Officer Kurrle, Officer Sit, Officer Miri, Officer Cook, and Officer De Los Santos. 2

The Complaint brought forth various 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of constitutional violations as well 3 claims based upon state tort law and California statutes. Plaintiff had also brought forth several 4 claims on behalf of Baby Arizmendi. The table below is a summary of the Complaint: 5 6

Eleventh

Intentional Infliction of ...


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.