Michael Judge v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 70

JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter. Defendant DEPUTY EDWIN BARRAGAN is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff MICHAEL JUDGE. Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said Plaintiff MICHAEL JUDGE shall recover nothing by reason o f the complaint, and that the Defendant DEPUTY EDWIN BARRAGAN shall recover costs from said plaintiff MICHAEL JUDGE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The cost bill will be submitted directly to this Court for its review and determination. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (iv)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

RICKEY IVIE (S.B.N.: 76864)
[e-mail]
ANTONIO K. KIZZIE (S.B.N.: 279719)
[e-mail]
JACK F. ALTURA (S.B.N.: 297314)
[e-mail]
IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT
444 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2919
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone] FAX

JS-6
Note Changes Made by Court

8
9

Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND DEPUTY EDWIN
BARRAGAN

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

MICHAEL JUDGE, an individual,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a
municipal entity, DEPUTY EDWIN
18 BARRGAN, an individual, inclusive
17

19
20
21
22

Defendants.

) Case No.: 2:18-cv-02181 JFW (RAOx)
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

23
24
25

On December 26, 2018, Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”) and Deputy
Edwin Barragan (“Barragan”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”). On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff Michael

26

Judge (“Plaintiff”) filed his Opposition. On January 14, 2019, Defendants filed a Reply. Pursuant to

27

Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found the matter

28

appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matter was, therefore, removed

JUDGMENT
32

1
2
3
4

from the Court’s January 28, 2019 hearing calendar, and the parties were given advance
notice. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the
Court rules as follows:
In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court

5

concludes

6

Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth

7
8

that

Defendant

Barragan

is

entitled

to

qualified

immunity

and GRANTS

Amendment right to be free from excessive force, alleged solely against Defendant Barragan.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second cause of action for battery and third cause of action for negligence

9

are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff also failed to file the required Proposed Statement of

10

Decision by January 16, 2019, and, as of February 4, 2019, has not filed the required Proposed

11

Statement of Decision. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order and Local Rule

12

7-12, Defendants’ Motion is also GRANTED for failure to file the Proposed Statement of Decision.

13

It appearing by reason of said Motion that: Defendant DEPUTY EDWIN
BARRAGAN is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff MICHAEL JUDGE.

14

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said Plaintiff MICHAEL

15

JUDGE shall recover nothing by reason of the complaint, and that the Defendant DEPUTY EDWIN

16

BARRAGAN shall recover costs from said plaintiff MICHAEL JUDGE pursuant to Federal Rule of

17

Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The cost bill will be submitted directly to this Court for its review and

18

determination.

19
20
21

Dated: February 21, 2019

The Honorable John F. Walter
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JUDGMENT
32