United States District Court, E.D. California
MELINDA AVILA; GRETEL LORENZO; ALFREDO LORENZO; and JOSE LORENZO, Plaintiffs,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF MADERA; RICHARD GONZALES; PAUL VARNER, and DOES 3 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS
GONZALES AND MADERA COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS TO JOSE LORENZO
A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion brought
by the County of Madera (“the County”) and Deputy
Richard Gonzales (“Gonzales”) (collectively,
“County Defendants”) on June 20, 2017. ECF No.
78. The Court asked the parties to further brief whether the
Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the County
Defendants on Jose Lorenzo's (“Jose”) claims.
Tr. 9:25-10:1-3, Jun. 20, 2017, ECF No. 82.
County Defendants filed their supplemental brief moving for
summary judgment on Jose's claims, ECF No. 81, which Jose
opposes, ECF No. 85. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS Gonzales' motion and denies the County's
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
about 2:00 a.m. on June 2, 2013, security at Chukchansi Gold
Casino called the Madera County Sheriff's Department
regarding a disturbance. Pls.' Resp. to Defs.'
Statement of Undisputed Facts (“UF”) #1, ECF No.
61-5. Gonzales responded to the scene with Sergeant Larry
Rich (another County officer) and two CHP officers. UF #3.
and the other plaintiffs were waiting outside in the
casino's portico when the officers approached them. UF
##7, 8. It is disputed whether Jose was intoxicated and what
Jose and the officers said to each other.
couple of minutes of conversation, Rich arrested Jose. UF
#17. Gonzales and Varner arrested Jose's brother Alfredo
Lorenzo (“Alfredo”) and took him to the ground.
UF ##20, 21. While Gonzales and Varner were trying to
handcuff Alfredo, Gretel Lorenzo (“Gretel”),
Jose's daughter, approached them. UF #22. Gonzales pushed
Gretel away. UF #24. Gretel fell backward into Melinda Avila,
knocking her down. UF #24. Avila went to the hospital via
ambulance. UF #26. Jose, Gretel, and Alfredo were arrested,
booked at the County jail, and released later that morning.
brings five claims: (1) violation of California Civil Code
§ 52.1 (“the Bane Act”); (2) false
arrest/imprisonment; (3) intentional infliction of emotional
distress (“IIED”); (4) negligent training and
supervision; and (5) violation of federal constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Third Amended
Complaint at 6-18, ECF No. 22. Jose voluntarily dismissed the
fourth claim entirely and the fifth claim as brought against
the County. ECF No. 65.
County Defendants moved for summary judgment against Jose on
his IIED claim in their original motion for summary judgment.
See Mot. for Summ. J. at 13-14, ECF No. 52-1. The
Court granted the County Defendants' motion on Jose's
IIED claim at the June 20, 2017 hearing. Tr. 45:14-17.
County Defendants now move for summary judgment on Jose's
first, second, and fifth claims. County Defs.'
Supplemental Mot. for Summ. J. (“Supp. Mot.”) at
First Claim: Bane Act
Bane Act “creates a right of action against any person
who interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion with the
exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States.” Barragan v. City of Eureka, 2016 WL
4549130, *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code
§ 52.1(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To
succeed on a Bane Act claim, a plaintiff must show an
underlying constitutional violation. See May v. San Mateo
Cty., No. 16-CV-00252-LB, 2017 WL 1374518, at *13 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 15, 2017); Mello v. Cty. of Sacramento,
No. 2:14-CV-02618-KJM, 2015 WL 1039128, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
10, 2015). “Public entities may be vicariously liable
for a violation of the Bane Act.” Galindo v. City
of San Mateo, No. 16-CV-03651-EMC, 2016 WL 7116927, at
*6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016).
Bane Act Claim ...