Harout Bagdasaryan et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 48

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of United States Magistrate Judge by Judge Josephine L. Staton: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; The Citys Motion to Dismiss the first, second, and fourth ca uses of action alleged by Harout Bagdasaryani.e., his due process and abuse of power claimsis granted, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice; The remainder of the City's Motion to Dismiss is denied; and The City's Answer filed on March 22, 2016 (Dkt. 38) is deemed as answer in response to the claims remaining in Plaintiffs' lawsuit following entry of this Order. See document for further information. (lwag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

HAROUT BAGDASARYAN,
MASIS BAGDASARYAN,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16

v.

Order Accepting Report and
Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge

CITY OF LOS ANGELES and
DOES 1-10,

17

Respondent.

18
19

Case No. CV 15-1008-JLS (KES)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Third

20

Amended Complaint (the “TAC”), the parties’ motion and opposition papers,

21

the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the assigned

22

United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has also reviewed the City

23

of Los Angeles’s (the “City”) written requests for clarification and objections to

24

the Report and Recommendation and made a de novo determination of those

25

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made.

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28

The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted.

1

2.

The City’s Motion to Dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes

2

of action alleged by Harout Bagdasaryan—i.e., his due process and abuse of

3

power claims—is granted, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice;1

4

3.

The remainder of the City’s Motion to Dismiss is denied;2

5

4.

The City’s Answer filed on March 22, 2016 (Dkt. 38) is deemed an

6

answer in response to the claims remaining in Plaintiffs’ lawsuit following

7

entry of this Order.

8
9

Dated: July 6, 2016
______________________________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In its objections, the City argues that the Report and
Recommendation mistakenly refers to the California Public Records Act claim
as the third cause of action when it is in fact the fourth cause of action, and the
“abuse of power” claim as the fourth cause of action when it is in fact the
third. (Dkt. 40 at 2.) While the caption of the TAC reflects the City’s
understanding, the Report and Recommendation is accurate based on TAC’s
substance. (Dkt. 24 at 18.) The City also queries whether Harout
Bagdasaryan’s elder abuse claim remains dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. 40 at
2.) It does. Dkt. 37 at 10 (“Plaintiff Harout Bagdasaryan asserts an injury
personal to himself in the third cause of action alleging violations of
California’s Public Records Act and the sixth cause of action for IIED. He
remains a plaintiff only as to these two causes of action.”) (emphasis added).
1

In its objections, the City raises new arguments regarding the
abuse of power and elder abuse claims, arguments that it did not raise in its
motion to dismiss the TAC. (Dkt. 40 at 3-5.) Plaintiffs did not have an
opportunity to respond to these arguments and the Court will not rule on
them.
2

2