Santa Ana Police Officers Association et al v. City of Santa Ana et al

Filing 88

JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants, City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department, Carlos Rojas, Christopher Revere, William Nimmo, Michael Claborn and Douglas McGeach y with respect to all 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims upon which this Court has original jurisdiction and the remaining state claims (the second and third claims for relief in the Third Amended Complaint) are dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling in state court. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lwag)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

SANTA ANA POLICE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION and COREY
SLAYTON,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal )
Corporation; SANTA ANA POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, a public safety
)
department; CARLOS ROJAS, Interim )
Chief of Police; DOES I-X, inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

NO. SA CV 15-01280-DOC
(DFMx)
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANTS, CITY OF SANTA
ANA, SANTA ANA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, CARLOS
ROJAS, CHRISTOPHER
REVERE, WILLIAM NIMMO,
MICHAEL CLABORN, AND
DOUGLAS MCGEACHY

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the City of
Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department with prejudice on December 2, 2015.

22

The Court granted summary judgment in favor of remaining individual

23

Defendants, Carlos Rojas, Christopher Revere, William Nimmo, Michael Claborn,

24

and Douglas McGeachy as to all of Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; and declined

25

to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, dismissing the remaining state

26

claims without prejudice subject to refiling in state court;

27

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered in

28

favor of Defendants, City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department, Carlos Rojas,

Judgment

1

No. SA CV 15-01280-DOC (DFMx)

1

Christopher Revere, William Nimmo, Michael Claborn, and Douglas McGeachy with

2

respect to all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims upon which this Court has original jurisdiction

3

and the remaining state claims (the second and third claims for relief in the Third

4

Amended Complaint) are dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling in state

5

court.

6
7
8

DATED: March 7, 2016

Hon. David O. Carter
U.S. District Court Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Judgment

2

No. SA CV 15-01280-DOC (DFMx)