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.

Avila v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 19, 2017

MELINDA AVILA; GRETEL LORENZO; ALFREDO LORENZO; and JOSE LORENZO, Plaintiffs,
v.
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

          JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The 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.

         The 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 motion.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         At 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.

         Jose 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.

         After a 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. UF #27.

         Jose 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.

         The 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.

         The 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 1.

         II. OPINION

         A. First Claim: Bane Act

         The 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).

         1. Bane Act Claim ...


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.