Floyd Hills Nelson et al v. Cityof Los Angeles et al

Filing 240

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 228 . IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that City Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiffs' motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part. (See Order for details) 140 (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
FLOYD HILLS NELSON et al.,

10
Plaintiffs,

11
vs.

12
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

13
Defendants.

14

) Case No. CV 11-5407-PSG (JPR)
)
)
) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, records

17 on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge
18 regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Charles Beck,
19 Carmen A. Trutanich, Antonio Villaraigosa, John Mack, John Izzo,
20 Stuart Lomax, Anthony Avila, Tracey Benjamin, Charles Bennett,
21 Robert Binder, Joe P. Callian, Veronica Conrado, Jason De La
22 Cova, David Friedrich, Dean Gizzi, Richard Guzman, Diana Herron,
23 Robert Kraus, Jeff Nolte, Richard Plows, Gustavo Ramirez, Randy
24 Rico, and Richard Ulley (“City Defendants”).

See 28 U.S.C.

25 § 636.

No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been

26 filed.

The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the

27 Magistrate Judge.
28

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that City Defendants’ motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiffs’

1 motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part, as
2 follows:
3

(1)

Plaintiffs may proceed on the FAC’s claims that

4

(a) Defendants Nolte, Ramirez, and Herron used excessive

5

force

6

Plaintiffs and (b) an officer (Defendant Callian) used

7

excessive

8

Plaintiff Harris by kicking him in the face.

9

may file an amended complaint alleging those claims as

10

well as that Defendants Friedrich and Herron failed to

11

intervene to prevent Nolte and Ramirez from continuing to

12

shoot at Plaintiffs.1

13

under

(2)

the

force

Fourth

under

Dismissal

of

Amendment

the

Fourth

by

shooting

Amendment

at

against

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs’

claims

based

and

City

Council’s

14

municipal

15

on

indemnification policy is with leave to amend.

16
17

(3)

liability

the

The remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims against

City Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

18

(4)

Defendants

Benjamin,

De

La

Cova,

Conrado,

19

Kraus,

20

Chamberlain, Steve Cooley, John K. Spillane, Curtis

21

Hazell, and Richard Doyle are dismissed from this action

22

because Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed all claims

23

against them.

24

(5)

Ulley,

Lomax,

Izzo,

Donald

Walthers,

Larry

After notice to Plaintiffs, Defendants William

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs may not file an amended complaint, however,
until the other four pending motions to dismiss, one each filed
by Defendant Alexander Yim, a group of County Defendants,
Defendants George Lavey and Tiffany Allen, and Defendant William
Gilbert, have been adjudicated.
2

1

J. Bratton, Adam Bircovici, and Larry A. Waldie are

2

dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)

3

because Plaintiffs have failed to effect service on them

4

in the more than two and a half years since the FAC was

5

ordered served.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9 DATED: November 13, 2014
10

PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3