Norwood Price v. Michael Peerson et al

Filing 120

JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Akal Security Inc, Pote Pigulsawas, Steven McGrath, William Wallace against Norwood Price Related to: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 111 , The Court rules that Defendants are entitled to ju dgment on the grounds that: 1. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Bivens claims fail. Plaintiff has failed to establish he was "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, Defendants established that there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop of Plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff's First Amendment Bivens claims fail. Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants acted with the impermissible motive of curbing protected speech or that that Defendants were motivated by retaliatory intent to silence Plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff's claims under the Bane Act, Cal. Ci v. Code § 52.1, and for respondeat superior liability also fail. Plaintiff has failed to establish a constitutional violation under the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, or for respondeat superior liability. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lw)

1

2

E-FILED 6/9/14

3

CLOSED

4
5
6
7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NORWOOD PRICE,

Case No. CV-13-3390 PSG (EMX)

12
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

vs.
MICHAEL PEERSON, AKAL SECURITY,
INC., WILLIAM WALLACE, POTE
PIGULSA WAS, STEVEN MCGRATH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR
OF DEFENDANT AKAL SECURITY
INC., WILLIAM WALLACE, POTE
PIGULSAWAS, AND STEVEN
MCGRATH

18
19
20

Defendants.
On April 1, 2014, Defendants Akal Security, Inc. ("Akal"), William Wallace, Pote

21

Pigulsawas, and Steven McGrath (the "Defendant CSOs") (and collectively referred to

22

herein, "Defendants") brought a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative for

23

summary adjudication against Plaintiff Norwood Price ("Plaintiff') on Plaintiffs claims

24

for First and Fourth Amendment violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403

25

U.S. 388,91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), and the Bane Act, and for respondeat superior liability.

26
27
28

The evidence and arguments in support and against the motion has been fully
considered by this Court, and a decision having been duly rendered,
The Court rules that Defendants are entitled to judgment on the grounds that:
Case No. CV-13-3390 PSG (EMX)
1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AKAL SECURITY INC., WILLIAM
WALLACE, POTE PIGULSA WAS, AND STEVEN MCGRATH

1

1.

Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment Bivens claims fail. Plaintiff has failed to

2

establish he was "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover,

3

Defendants established that there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop of

4

Plaintiff.

5

2.

Plaintiffs First Amendment Bivens claims fail. Plaintiff has failed to

6

establish that Defendants acted with the impermissible motive of curbing protected speech

7

or that that Defendants were motivated by retaliatory intent to silence Plaintiff.

8
9

3.

Plaintiffs claims under the Bane Act, Cal. Ci v. Code § 52.1, and for

respondeat superior liability also fail. Plaintiff has failed to establish a constitutional

10

violation under the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, or for respondeat superior

11

liability.

12
13

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

6/9/14
Dated:----------------------

16
17
THE HON. PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19

20

Submitted by:

21

FRANKEL GOLD WARE FERBER LLP

22
23
24
25
26

s/Michelle R. Ferber
Michelle R. Ferber
Attorneys for Defendants
AKAL SECURITY, INC., WILLIAM WALLACE,
POTE PIGULSAWAS, and STEVEN MCGRATH

27

28
Case No. CV-13-3390 PSG (EMX)
2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AKAL SECURITY INC., WILLIAM
WALLACE, POTE PIGULSA WAS, AND STEVEN MCGRATH