Metal Jeans, Inc. v. State Of California et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 54 55 for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED with respect to all claims. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

Download PDF
1 JS-6 2 3 O 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 METAL JEANS, INC., a Nevada corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; JON RELLES; TODD BARRETT; HOWARD SOMMERS TOWING, INC., a California corporation, Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 15-02127 DDP (PJWx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. 54, 55] 18 19 Presently before the court are two motions for summary 20 judgment, one filed by Defendants State of California, Jon Relles, 21 and Todd Barrett (“the State Defendants”), and the other by 22 Defendant Howard Sommers Towing, Inc. 23 submissions of the parties and heard oral argument, the court 24 grants the motions and adopts the following Order. 25 I. Having considered the Background1 26 1 27 28 The following facts are drawn from the State Defendants’ Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law and Plaintiff’s Disputed Issues of Genuine Issues of Disputed Material Fact in response to the State Defendants’ statement. Plaintiff’s objections to the Declarations of Jon Relles, Todd Barrett, Heather (continued...) 1 On April 11, 2014, Defendant Todd Barrett (“Barrett”), a 2 California Highway Patrol Officer, noticed a tractor-trailer parked 3 on the side of the U.S. 101 freeway. 4 hours later, Barrett noticed that the tractor-trailer had not been 5 moved. 6 no response. 7 been issues to a different trailer of a different make, model, and 8 year. 9 Canadian authorities returned a result that read, in part, Approximately twenty four Barrett knocked on the window of the tractor, but received The trailer bore a California license plate that had The tractor bore a Canadian license plate. An inquiry to 10 “**Response from Canadian System - Stolen Vehicle File**[.]” Below 11 other lines of text, the report read, “**Not on File[.]**” Barrett 12 thought this report might indicate that the tractor had been 13 stolen. 14 Barrett also located a vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) 15 on the trailer (“the first VIN”). 16 license plate displayed on the trailer. 17 another VIN number (“the second VIN”) elsewhere, on the frame of 18 the trailer. 19 second VIN, with a “1” in the latter modified to appear as a “T” in 20 the former. 21 The VIN did not match the Barrett later located The first VIN appeared to be an alteration of the Barrett decided to have the tractor and trailer towed. CHP Officer Heather Chaldu soon arrived at the scene, followed 22 by a tow truck dispatched by Defendant Howard Sommers Towing, Inc. 23 (“HST”). 24 Barrett attempted to enter the tractor to confirm that nobody was 25 hiding or incapacitated inside the sleeping area, and to look for 26 evidence that the tractor or trailer had been stolen, or evidence Before the tow truck impounded the tractor-trailer, 27 1 28 (...continued) Chaldu, and Seth Moffitt are overruled. 2 1 that would otherwise explain the tractor-trailer’s prolonged 2 presence on the side of the freeway. 3 to the tractor cab by breaking the window on the passenger side. 4 The sleeping compartment was empty, although Barrett did find 5 license plates and registration records for several vehicles, 6 including a Canadian license plate that had been issued to the 7 trailer. 8 wheel blocks. 9 Neither Barrett nor Officer Chaldu observed any damage being caused 10 11 Barrett finally gained entry The trailer was also empty, except for load lock bars and HST then towed the tractor-trailer to an HST yard. to the truck during the tow. Defendent Relles, a CHP Officer, was assigned to investigate 12 the tractor-trailer. 13 (“Topolewski”) arrived at the CHP office to claim the trailer. 14 Relles’ investigation into whether the tractor-trailer had been 15 stolen was not complete, so he declined to release the tractor- 16 trailer to Topolewski at that time. 17 authorities, who preliminarily indicated that the tractor-trailer 18 had not been stolen. 19 On April 15, 2014, Gary Topolewski Relles then contacted Canadian Topolewski told Relles that someone named Matt Cowley had left 20 the tractor-trailer adjacent to the freeway. Relles was unable to 21 contact Matt Cowley at the phone number Topolewski provided. 22 Plaintiff later acknowledged that Matt Cowley no longer worked for 23 Plaintiff at the time the tractor-trailer was left near the 24 freeway, and that someone named Roger Ogden was responsible for 25 abandoning the tractor-trailer. 26 inspect the tractor-trailer and confirmed that the trailer’s first 27 VIN had been gouged, and thus did not match the second VIN. 28 nevertheless decided to release the tractor-trailer to Topolewski Relles went to the HST lot to 3 Relles 1 later in the day, and left a message with Topolewski to that 2 effect. 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 4 1983 against for the allegedly unlawful search and seizure of the 5 tractor-trailer. 6 negligence and conversion. 7 judgment. 8 II. 9 The Complaint also alleges causes of action for Defendants now move for summary Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, 10 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 11 together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no 12 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 13 to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 14 seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the 15 court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions 16 of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the 17 absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 18 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 19 the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See 20 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). 21 moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is 22 entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is 23 an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” 24 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 25 A party See Celotex Corp. v. All reasonable inferences from If the Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to 26 the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth 27 specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 28 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is warranted if a 4 1 party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 2 existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on 3 which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” 4 477 U.S. at 322. 5 that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 6 party,” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome 7 of the suit under the governing law.” 8 There is no genuine issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a 9 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the Celotex, A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such 10 nonmoving party.” 11 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 12 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio It is not the court’s task “to scour the record in search of a 13 genuine issue of triable fact.” 14 1278 (9th Cir.1996). 15 support clearly. 16 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.2001). 17 file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the 18 evidence is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate 19 references so that it could conveniently be found.” 20 III. Discussion Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, Counsel has an obligation to lay out their Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d The court “need not examine the entire Id. 21 A. 22 “A plaintiff may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to Section 1983 Claims 23 redress violations of his ‘rights, privileges, or immunities 24 secured by the Constitution and laws’ by a person or entity, 25 including a municipality, acting under the color of state law.” 26 Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) 27 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 28 section 1983, [a plaintiff] must show that (1) [the defendant] “To state a cause of action under 5 1 acted under color of state law; and (2) [the defendant] deprived 2 [the plaintiff] of rights secured by the Constitution or federal 3 law.” 4 Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1990). “The impoundment of an automobile is a seizure within the 5 meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” 6 429 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). 7 Police may seize a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe 8 the vehicle is evidence of a crime, even if the vehicle is parked 9 in a public place. Miranda v. City of Cornelius, United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482 at 490-91 10 (9th Cir. 1985). 11 vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that it contains 12 evidence of a crime, or when they reasonably believe that someone 13 is in need of immediate aid. 14 (1999); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); United States 15 v. Rodgers, 656 F.2d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011); Hopkins v. 16 Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 763-64 (9th Cir. 2009). 17 “[i]n their ‘community caretaking’ function, police officers may 18 impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the vehicular 19 movement of vehicular traffic. 20 . . . depends on the location of the vehicle and the police 21 offiers’ duty to prevent it from creating a hazard to other drivers 22 or being a target for vandalism or theft.” 23 864 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 24 Police may also conduct a warrantless search of a Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 Additionally, Whether an impoundment is warranted Miranda, 429 F.3d at Defendants contend that Barrett reasonably believed that the 25 trailer had been stolen. “[W]here the material, historical facts 26 are not in dispute, and the only disputes involve what inferences 27 properly may be drawn from those historical facts, it is 28 appropriate for [a] court to decide whether probable cause existed 6 1 . . . .” 2 Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 It is undisputed that the tractor-trailer had been left 4 unattended on the side of a freeway for approximately twenty-four 5 hours, that the trailer displayed a license plate that had been 6 issued to a different trailer of a different make, model, and year, 7 and that the trailer bore two different VINs.2 8 argues that Barrett “misread” the first VIN and later stated that 9 he entered the “wrong VIN number” when conducting a license plate Although Plaintiff 10 check, that assertion is not supported by the record. 11 at 6:4; Plaintiff’s Disputed Issues of Genuine Issues of Disputed 12 Material Fact (“PDIF”) 9.) 13 Barrett’s report did not state that he entered a “wrong” VIN. 14 Rather, the report states that the trailer bore two different VINs, 15 the first of which returned a “no record” result. 16 Mark Overland, Ex. 3.) Indeed, Plaintiff does not dispute that the 17 first VIN was gouged and altered. 18 Plaintiff dispute that Barrett was taught that thieves sometimes 19 put the wrong license plate on a vehicle or alter a vehicle’s VIN 20 so the vehicle will not return a stolen vehicle report. (Opposition Contrary to Plaintiff’s representation, (PDIF 50, 56.) (Declaration of Nor does (PDIF 11.) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ characterization that the tractor-trailer was abandoned on the dirt “shoulder” of the freeway. Photographs taken by HST’s driver indicate that the tractor-trailer was adjacent to the freeway, approximately 3 or 4 car widths from the nearest lane of traffic. Plaintiff also disputes that the tractor-trailer was left directly in front of an “Emergency Parking Only” sign. Both Barrett and Officer Chadhu stated that the vehicle was parked in such an area. The only evidence to the contrary is Topolewski’s testimony that he has never seen an emergency parking sign at that location. Topolewski was never asked whether he had ever looked at that area in particular or would have any reason to take note of any signs in that location. (Overland Decl., Ex. 2 at 44.) 7 1 Thus, even putting aside Barrett’s misreading of the Canadian 2 “Stolen Vehicle File” report, Barrett had probable cause to believe 3 that the trailer had been stolen.3 4 Even if probable cause did not exist to suspect that the 5 trailer had been stolen, other exceptions to the Fourth Amendment 6 justified Barrett’s actions. 7 tractor cab because he was concerned that someone might be in the 8 sleeping compartment, either unable or unwilling to respond. 9 Although Plaintiff disputes this fact by citation to Officer Barrett stated that he entered the 10 Chaldu’s declaration, that evidence supports rather than 11 contradicts Barrett’s statement. 12 actions therefore fall under the emergency and exigency 13 exceptions.4 (Chaldu Decl. ¶ 5-6.) Barrett’s See Hopkins, 573 F.3d at 763. 14 Lastly, Barrett’s decision to seize the tractor-trailer was 15 justified under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth 16 Amendment. 17 and of itself implicate the community caretaking doctrine, related 18 factors, including whether a vehicle is impeding traffic, 19 threatening public safety, or vulnerable to vandalism and theft are 20 relevant to whether impoundment is warranted. Although violation of state vehicle codes would not in See United States v. 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 That probable cause was sufficient to justify the search and seizure of both the trailer and the tractor. Even though the tractor was displaying the proper license plate and did not have an altered VIN, it could have been involved in the potential theft of the trailer, and indeed contained license plates and registrations for several different vehicles. The tractor was therefore subject to seizure as evidence of a potential crime. Bagley, 772 F.2d at 490-91. 4 27 28 Barrett’s actions fall under these exceptions even assuming that the standards applicable to a home applies to the tractor’s sleeping area. See Hopkins, 573 F.3d at 763; Dyson, 1999 U.S. at 466-67. 8 1 Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2012); Miranda, 429 2 F.3d at 864. 3 was abandoned on the side of a freeway. 4 trailer was not immediately adjacent to traffic lanes, it was in 5 the vicinity of moving traffic. 6 Officer Chaldu stated that the tractor-trailer was left in an 7 emergency parking area, and Barrett stated that it was blocking an 8 emergency parking sign. 9 trailer was impeding other motorists’ use of the area both by Here, there is no dispute that the tractor-trailer Although the tractor- Furthermore, both Barrett and (See n. 1, supra). As such, the tractor- 10 physically occupying the space and by blocking signage advising 11 motorists of the area’s intended use. 12 been abandoned, the tractor-trailer was a tempting target for 13 thieves or vandals. 14 Lastly, having apparently Plaintiff appears to suggest that the community caretaking 15 rationale nevertheless does not apply because Barrett could have 16 contacted Plaintiff, “whose identity was visible on the tractor.” 17 (Opp. at 8.) 18 trailer did bear a “Metal Jeans” name, logo, and website, the 19 pictures do not show any phone number or any other contact 20 information, other than the general website address. 21 Appendix, Ex. 1.) 22 able to track Plaintiff down has no bearing on whether the tractor- 23 trailer posed a hazard to community safety at the time it was 24 seized. For these reasons, Barrett’s search and seizure of the 25 tractor-trailer did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 26 Although photographs do reveal that the tractor- (HST Further, the fact that Barrett might have been Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims 27 against Relles fail because Relles, who investigated the tractor- 28 trailer after it had been towed to HST’s yard, did not seize 9 1 anything. Plaintiff does not respond to this argument. To the 2 extent Plaintiff’s claim against Relles is based upon his search of 3 the tractor-trailer inside HST’s yard, the claim has no merit. 4 Relles had probable cause to investigate the tractor-trailer as 5 evidence of a crime for the same reasons that Barrett had probable 6 cause to search and seize the tractor-trailer in the first 7 instance.5 8 may reasonably search vehicles that have already been lawfully 9 impounded. Further, the Supreme Court has long held that police See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 371-74 10 (1976). 11 Amendment claims against Relles, and therefore cites no evidence to 12 support the baseless claims. 13 Plaintiff’s opposition makes no mention of the Fourth In summary, there is no evidence in the record to support 14 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. 15 undisputed evidence establishes that Barrett’s search and seizure 16 of Plaintiff’s tractor-trailer, as well as Relles’ subsequent 17 follow-up search, were permissible under several exceptions to the 18 Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. 19 Amendment claims fail, the court need not address HST’s argument 20 that it is entitled to summary judgment because it was not acting 21 under color of law, nor the State Defendants’ arguments that 22 Barrett and Relles are entitled to qualified immunity. 23 24 To the contrary, the Because Plaintiff’s Fourth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims is granted. 25 5 26 27 28 Plaintiff does not dispute that even though Topolewski claimed he had not filed a stolen vehicle report, Relles believed Topolewski or someoneone else at Topolewski’s company might have filed a false report as part of an insurance fraud scheme. (PDIF 44.) Relles also stated that he believed a third party might have disputed Topolewski’s ownership. (Declaration of Jon Relles ¶ 6.) 10 1 B. Conversion 2 Under California law, a conversion claim requires (1) 3 ownership or right to possession of property, (2) wrongful 4 disposition of that property, and (3) damages. 5 Assoc., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc., 958 F.2d 896, 906 (9th 6 Cir. 1992). “In order to establish a conversion the plaintiff must 7 show an intention or purpose to convert the goods and to exercise 8 ownership over them, or to prevent the owner from taking poesssion 9 of his property. G.S. Rasmussen & Thus, a necessary element of the tort is an 10 intent to exercise ownership over property which belongs to 11 another.” 12 (1994). 13 Collin v. Am. Empire Ins. Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 787, 405 Plaintiff’s theory of its conversion claim is unclear. 14 Plaintiff argues that “the crux of Plaintiff’s claim for conversion 15 is Defendant’s (sic) wrongful interference with Plaintiff’s 16 property interests in the Truck and resulting damage.” 17 9:9-10.) 18 pertains to the presence or absence of a refrigerator and 19 television inside the tractor. 20 Plaintiff cites does not mention any such property. 21 Decl., Ex. 2.) 22 television in the tractor “at some point,” he had “no idea” when he 23 last saw either the television or the tractor prior to recovering 24 the latter from the HST yard. 25 Ex. 6 at 122-23.) 26 driver all stated that they did not see a television or 27 refrigerator inside the tractor. 28 find that any Defendant converted any such property. (Opp. at Some of the evidence to which Plaintiff cites, however, (PDIF 33-35.) The exhibit to which (Overland Although Topolewski did testify that he saw a (Declaration of Benjamin Barnouw, Barrett, Officer Chaldu, and the tow truck No reasonable trier of fact could 11 1 Nor could any reasonable trier of fact conclude that any 2 Defendant converted the tractor-trailer. There is no evidence that 3 any Defendant sought to exercise ownership over the tractor 4 trailer. 5 evidence that any Defendant “wrongfully” disposed of the tractor 6 trailer. 7 impermissible under the California Vehicle Code is simply 8 incorrect. 9 peace officer to remove a vehicle that is left upon a freeway Collin, 21 Cal. App. 4th at 805. Nor is there any Plaintiff’s argument that the impound of the trailer was (Opp. at 7.) The California Vehicle Code allows a 10 right-of-way for more than four hours or displays a license plate 11 that was not issued to that vehicle, or where an officer has 12 probable cause to believe the vehicle is or contains evidence of a 13 crime or reasonably believes the vehicle has been abandoned. 14 Vehicle Code §§ 22651(f),(o)(1)(b), 22655.5(b), 22699(a). 15 evidence is undisputed that the tractor-trailer was subject to 16 impoundment under any and all of these provisions.6 17 Cal. The Plaintiff also argues, briefly, that “[t]he evidence is 18 disputed as to whether defendants intended to and exercised ‘a 19 reasonable opportunity to inquire’ into Plaintiff’s claim of 20 ownership.” 21 Plaintiff’s argument appears to be that Relles converted the 22 tractor-trailer by not immediately releasing it to Topolewski until 23 the evening, as opposed to the morning, of April 15. 24 Giacomelos v. Bank of Am. Nat. Trust & Sav. Assoc., 237 Cal. App. 25 2d 99, 100 (1965) (“The law does recognize the dilemma of one in 26 possession as a bailee or similar holder upon demand by a third (Opp. at 9:12-14.) Although not stated as such, See 27 6 28 For these same reasons, HST did not act wrongfully in carrying out Barrett’s request to impound the tractor-trailer. 12 1 party for the goods. Such holder does not become a converter by 2 making a qualified refusal to surrender if his real and stated 3 purpose is to secure a reasonable opportunity to inquire into the 4 claimant’s right.”) 5 Although Plaintiff contends that there is a dispute as to 6 whether Relles’ efforts were reasonable, it is undisputed that 7 Relles spent the day inquiring with Canadian authorities as to the 8 status of the trailer as well as investigating the trailer itself. 9 As discussed above, regardless of the outcome of the Canadian 10 inquiry, Relles had probable cause to suspect that the trailer was 11 stolen, or possibly the subject of an insurance fraud scheme.7 12 Further, because the trailer had an altered VIN, Relles had wide 13 discretion to dispose of or release it. 14 Accordingly, Relles’ decision to continue investigating the tractor 15 trailer for, at most, one business day was not unreasonable or 16 wrongful. 17 18 Cal. Vehicle Code § 10751. For these reasons, the court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s conversion claim. 19 C. 20 The elements of a negligence claim are: (1) the existence of a Negligence 21 duty to exercise due care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, 22 and (4) damages. 23 (2001). 24 Defendant breached a duty to Plaintiff or caused any damages. 25 Plaintiff’s responses are not well developed. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 465, 500 Defendants argue that there is no evidence that any Plaintiff contends 26 7 27 28 Even if there were evidence of conversion, Defendants argue that Barrett and Relles would be immune from Plaintiff’s tort claim under California Government Code §§ 821.6 and 820.2. Plaintiff does not address this argument. 13 1 that “the crux of Plaintiff’s negligence claim is the failure to 2 use ordinary care in safeguarding Plaintiff’s property rights in 3 the Truck and resulting damage.” 4 evidentiary support for Plaintiff’s argument, such as it is. 5 the five disputed facts Plaintiff cites, three pertain to the 6 television and refrigerator, discussed above in the context of 7 Plaintiff’s conversion claim. 8 to whether the truck’s bumper was already damaged when the HST tow 9 truck arrived. (Opp. at 9:21-22.) (PDIF 33-35.) There is no Of The other two pertain HST’s driver took pictures of the bumper prior to 10 the tow. 11 photographs was already there when he arrived, and that he did not 12 see any further damage being caused during the tow. 13 ¶¶ 10, 12.) 14 Barrett stated that damage to the bumper depicted in the (Barrett Decl. Plaintiff disputes this evidence with reference to counsel 15 Mark Overland’s Declaration and exhibits 4, 5, and 6 thereto. 16 Overland Declaration, however, simply misstates the evidence. 17 Overland states that Barrett’s police report indicates no damage to 18 the tractor’s bumper prior to the tow. 19 However, exhibit 4, to which Overland cites, is not the report 20 pertaining to the tractor, but rather the report pertaining to the 21 trailer. 22 Overland, is Barrett’s report on the tractor. 23 describes damage to the right bumper, left rear wheel area, the 24 right window (which Barrett admittedly broke to gain entry to the 25 cab), and elsewhere. 26 of excerpts from Topolewski’s deposition, wherein Topolewski 27 recounts visiting the HST yard and observing damage to the tractor 28 consistent with Barrett’s report. (Overland Decl., Ex. 4.) (Overland Decl. ¶ 5.) Exhibit 5, also cited by (Overland Decl., Ex. 5.) 14 The That report clearly Exhibit 6 consists 1 On this record, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude 2 that the damage to the truck, other than the broken window, was 3 caused by any Defendant. 4 Plaintiff argue, that Barrett’s decision to break the window in the 5 course of entering the tractor’s cab to make sure nobody was hiding 6 or incapacitated within was a breach of any duty Barrett owed to 7 Plaintiff. 8 Plaintiff’s negligence claim. 9 IV. 10 11 No trier of fact could find, nor does Accordingly, summary judgment is granted on Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED with respect to all claims. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: October 17, 2016 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?