Melvin Davis v. City of Long Beach

Filing 73

JUDGMENT by Judge A. Howard Matz the Court enters judgment in accordance with the terms in the attached [Proposed] Order Re Motion for Summary Judgment 72 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
ROBERT E. SHANNON, City Attorney
333 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664

11
12
13
14
15

MELVIN DAVIS,

Case No.: CV11-04786 AHM(MRWx)
Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT

vs.
CITY OF LONG BEACH,
Defendant.

16
17
18

The Court enters judgment in accordance with the terms in the attached

19
20

[Proposed] Order Re Motion for Summary Judgment.

21
22

DATED: December 27, 2012

23
24
25

By:
Honorable A. Howard Matz
Judge of the United States District Court

26
27
28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELVIN DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No.: CV11-04786
Honorable A. Howard Matz
Courtroom 14

vs.

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

CITY OF LONG BEACH,
Defendant.

Complaint Filed: June 14, 2011

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This action came on for hearing before the Court on December 3, 2012,
Hon. A. Howard Matz, District Judge Presiding, on a Motion for Summary
Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, as to all counts of the
First Amended Complaint. Appearances for the parties were made by Barry M.
Meyers, Senior Deputy City Attorney, for defendant CITY OF LONG BEACH and
Edwin Pairvai, Esq. for plaintiff, Melvin Davis.
The Court has reviewed and considered the moving papers, the
Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Supporting Evidence, the
Declarations and deposition transcripts lodged in support of the motion, the
plaintiff’s opposition to the motion and supporting evidence and the defendant’s
reply. The Court has also considered oral argument of counsel.
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Following the Court’s review of the papers in support and in opposition

2

to the motion, the Court finds that there exists no triable issue of material fact

3

requiring the weighing process of a jury. The Court further finds, based on the legal

4

authority cited in the moving papers, that the defendants is entitled to a judgment, as

5

a matter of law, in its favor and against the plaintiff, to all causes of action.

6

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING therefore, the defendant’s motion for

7

summary judgment is GRANTED, and that Judgment shall be entered in its favor.

8

It is further ordered that City Of Long Beach recover its costs as the prevailing

9

party.

10
11

DATED:

12
13
14

By:
Honorable A. Howard Matz
Judge of the United States District Court

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT