Ludwig v. Adult Protective Services of Sacramento County et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/4/11 ORDERING Officer Mulligan is Dismissed as a party to this action; the claims alleged against the City of Sacramento are Dismissed with Prejudice. The claims are barred by the two year statute of limitat ions. Leave to amend is Denied because amendment of the First Amended Complaint would be futile; the claim for relief alleged against Det. Amy Crosby is Dismissed with Prejudice. The claim is barred by the two year statute of limitations. Leave to amend is Denied because amendment of the First Amended Complaint would be futile. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

EILEEN M. TEICHERT, City Attorney (SBN 167027)
SHERI M. CHAPMAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 215775)
[e-mail]
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Mailing: P.O. Box 1948, Sacramento, CA 95812-1948
Office: 915 I Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO
And AMY CROSBY

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SUSAN LUDWIG,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 2:10-CV-00325-JAM-EFB
ORDER GRANTING CITY OF
SACRAMENTO AND DET. AMY
CROSBY’S MOTION TO DISMISS, WITH
PREJUDICE

vs.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Hearing Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Hon.

Defendants.

September 21, 2011
9:30 a.m.
6
Hon. John A. Mendez

18
19

Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and Det. AMY CROSBY’s Motion to Dismiss the

20

Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure came regularly

21

for hearing before the court on September 21, 2011. Plaintiff SUSAN LUDWIG was present and was

22

represented by David J. Beauvais. Defendants were represented by the City Attorney, Sr. Deputy

23

City Attorney Sheri M. Chapman appearing therefore.

24
25

The Court having considered the moving papers, the opposition brief, and the parties’ oral
argument, grants Defendants’ Motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, with prejudice.

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

27

(1) OFFICER MULLIGAN is dismissed as a party to this action.

28
1

ORDER GRANTING CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND DET. AMY CROSBY’S MOTION TO DISMISS

201376
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

(2) The claims alleged against the CITY OF SACRAMENTO are dismissed with prejudice.

2

The claims are barred by the two year statute of limitations.

3

because amendment of the First Amended Complaint would be futile.

Leave to amend is denied

4

(3) The claim for relief alleged against Det. AMY CROSBY is dismissed with prejudice. The

5

claim is barred by the two year statute of limitations. Leave to amend is denied because

6

amendment of the First Amended Complaint would be futile.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: October 4, 2011

9
10

/s/ John A. Mendez________________________
HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

ORDER GRANTING CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND DET. AMY CROSBY’S MOTION TO DISMISS

201376
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com