Lopez v. Shiroma, et al.

Filing 52

JUDGMENT signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/24/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
CONSTANCE L. LELOUIS, State Bar No. 148821
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
AARON JONES, State Bar No. 248246
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
SILVIA LOPEZ,

1:14-cv-00236-LJO-GSA

13
Plaintiff,
14
v.

JUDGMENT

15
16
17
18
19

GENEVIEVE SHIROMA, an individual;
CATHRYN RIVERA-HERNANDEZ, an
individual; J. ANTONIO BARBOSA, an
individual; SILAS SHAWVER, an
individual; and DOES 1 - 20,

Courtroom:
Judge:
Trial Date:
Action Filed:

Four
The Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill
None Set
February 21, 2014

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Judgment (1:14-cv-00236-LJO-GSA)

1

On September 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit entered its judgment

2

via Memorandum disposition on the appeal of defendants Genevieve Shiroma, Cathryn Rivera-

3

Hernandez, J. Antonio Barbosa, and Silas Shawver (“Defendants”) granting qualified official

4

immunity to Defendants and denying the request for leave to amend of plaintiff Silvia Lopez

5

(“Plaintiff”) (together with Defendants, the “Parties”). (Dkt. 46.) The Mandate issued on

6

October 7, 2016. (Dkt. 48.) The Complaint’s Second Cause of Action is dismissed by stipulation

7

of the parties filed concurrently herewith and the Court’s order thereon. Therefore, and pursuant

8

to the stipulation of the Parties, FINAL JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of all Defendants

9

and against Plaintiff on the First and Third Causes of Action set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint in

10

their entirety and those causes of action are dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

11

Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court hereby finds that there is no just reason to delay of entry of final

12

judgment on the Complaint’s First and Third Causes of Action, which, with dismissal of the

13

Second Cause of Action, fully resolve this case.

14

The CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 24, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Judgment (1:14-cv-00236-LJO-GSA)