K.E.C. v. County of Kern, et al.

Filing 44

ORDER Directing Submission of Additional Briefing #36 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/17/2016. (1. Defendants are directed to file a brief clarifying their position on summary judgment as to plaintiffs wrongful death claim, within seven days of this order. Defendants' brief may be no longer than five pages in length. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file, at their election, an opposition brief to defendants' supplemental brief, within fourteen days of this order. Plaintiff's brief may be no longer than five pages in length.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEANU ETHAN CAMPOS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:14-cv-01099-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF
ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
(Doc. No. 36)
Defendants.

16
17
18

The operative pleading in this action is plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on

19

October 9, 2014. (Doc. No. 19). The first cause of action in that amended complaint purports to

20

be a survivorship action for a civil rights violation (id. at 5-8), while the second cause of action

21

purports to be for wrongful death based upon a civil rights violation. (Id. at 8-9.) The defendants

22

filed a motion for summary judgment on February 10, 2016. (Doc. No. 36.) In their motion,

23

defendants purport to move for summary judgment in their favor as to both causes of action.

24

The court has determined that the issues raised by the pending summary judgment motion

25

require additional briefing with respect to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. In their motion,

26

defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s wrongful

27

death claim. (Doc. No. 36-1 at 14.) They based their argument on a claimed entitlement to

28

immunity under California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2) and plaintiff’s alleged violation of
1

1

California’s “one action rule” for wrongful death actions. (Id.) Defendants do not appear to

2

have addressed, or moved for summary judgment in their favor on, the merits of plaintiff’s

3

wrongful death claim. In their opposition papers, plaintiff argued that the “one action rule” does

4

not require the court to dismiss the wrongful death action in this case. (Doc. No. 37 at 16–17.) In

5

their reply defendants withdrew their argument for summary judgment on the second cause of

6

action based upon the “one action rule.” (Doc. No. 41 at 10.)
The court seeks clarification as to the basis for defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

7
8

as to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. Is defendants’ motion now based solely on a claimed

9

entitlement to immunity under California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2) and not on the merits

10

of that claim based upon evidence presented on summary judgment? In order to assist resolution

11

of the pending motion, the court directs defendants and plaintiff to file supplemental briefing with

12

respect to this issue.

13

CONCLUSION

14

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above:

15

1. Defendants are directed to file a brief clarifying their position on summary judgment as

16

to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim, within seven days of this order. Defendants’ brief may be no

17

longer than five pages in length.
2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file, at their election, an opposition brief to defendants’

18
19

supplemental brief, within fourteen days of this order. Plaintiff’s brief may be no longer than five

20

pages in length.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 17, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2