Donald Bridges v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 43

JUDGMENT RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner, 40 . (pso)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
12
13

CASE NO.: CV14-04462-RGK (CWx)

DONALD BRIDGES,

14

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT RE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

15
16
17
18
19
20

v.
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
DEPUTY JOHN PADILLA and
DEPUTY IVAN CARDENAS, and
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE
Defendants.

21
22

On May 15, 2015, Defendants the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

23
24
25
26

DEPUTY JOHN PADILLA and DEPUTY IVAN CARDENAS filed their Motion
for Summary Judgment before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, who took the
motion under submission. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

27
28
-1JUDGMENT RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2

After full consideration of the papers filed in support of the motion, the
Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to the

3
4

issues raised in the Defendants’ Motion and, therefore, grants summary judgment

5

on the §1983 claim and the claims of assault, battery and negligence in favor of

6

Defendants the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPUTY JOHN PADILLA, and

7
8

DEPUTY IVAN CARDENAS.

9
10

Therefore, for the reasons set forth by this Court in its Order of June 30,
2015 granting the Motion, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants the

11
12

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPUTY JOHN PADILLA, and DEPUTY IVAN

13

CARDENAS. As these Defendants are the prevailing parties, they shall be entitled

14

to recover their costs reasonably incurred in defense of this action as allowed by

15
16

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1883 and

17

1988.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

DATED: July 31, 2015

________________________
Honorable R. Gary Klausner
United States District Court Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2JUDGMENT RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT