Eaglesmith et al v. Ray et al

Filing 248

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/27/12 GRANTING Summary Judgment in favor of defendant Sue Segura and against Plaintiff Ramona Eaglesmith. FURTHER, the Court sustains each of defendant SUE SEGURAs objections toplaintiffs evidence.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

LOUIS A. LEONE, ESQ. (SBN: 099874)
KATHLEEN DARMAGNAC, ESQ. (SBN: 150843)
BRIAN A. DUUS, ESQ. (SBN: 263403)
STUBBS & LEONE
A Professional Corporation
2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 900
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PLUMAS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION/PLUMAS
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUE SEGURA AND JEFF RAY

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12
13

JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH,
RAMONA EAGLESMITH, EILEEN COX and
BRUCE BARNES,

14

Plaintiffs,
15
16

vs.

17
18
19
20

JEFF RAY, as an individual, SUE SEGURA,
as an individual, and BOARD OF
TRUSTESS OF PLUMAS COUNTY OFFICE
OF EDUCATION/PLUMAS COUNTY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-00098-JAM-JFM
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
SUE SEGURA AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF
RAMONA EAGLESMITH
Date: October 17, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 6
TRIAL: May 20, 2013

21

Defendants.
22
23

On October 17, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Defendant SUE SEGURA’s Motion for Summary
24

Judgment came on for hearing in Courtroom 6, 14th Floor, Hon. John Mendez, presiding. The

25

Court, having considered the moving papers, the papers in opposition, and the reply, the
26

arguments of counsel, and the records and pleadings on file herein, entered its order on
27

October 31, 2012 and ruled as follows:
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SUE SEGURA AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF
RAMONA EAGLESMITH
-1-

1

The Court GRANTS summary judgment on the seventh claim for violation of 42 U.S.C.

2

§1983 and 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 in favor of defendant SUE SEGURA and against plaintiff

3

RAMONA EAGLESMITH, for the following reasons:

4

Defendant SUE SEGURA is entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons. First, that

5

there is no underlying constitutional violation. And secondly, that even assuming there was a

6

constitutional violation, any right that defendant SUE SEGURA may have violated was not

7

clearly established by plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH.

8

public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages unless the conduct

9

violates clearly established law that would be known to a reasonable public officer. Saucier v.

10

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001);

11

Qualified immunity does shield

2004).

Wittman v. Saenz, 108 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir.

12

Summary judgment for defendant SUE SEGURA is appropriate on qualified immunity

13

alone, but with respect to the equal protection claim, there is no evidence presented by

14

plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH that Footloose is and was the only private dance studio in

15

Quincy, and plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH’s claim falls short of the requirement that she

16

show that she was treated differently than similarly-situated individuals.

17

With respect to the First Amendment claim, it is clear as a matter of law that plaintiff

18

RAMONA EAGLESMITH’s relationships do not fall within the scope of relationships protected

19

under the First Amendment. Bd. of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte,481 U.S.

20

537, 107 S. Ct. 1940 (1987).

21

And then finally on the contractual relationship, the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, there is no

22

evidence of any contractual relationship between plaintiff RAMONA EAGLSMITH, plaintiff

23

EILEEN COX or the PLUMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT or the students. Plaintiff

24

RAMONA EAGLESMITH does not have a contract, and she is not responsible for entering

25

into contracts on behalf of the dance studio with students. She is not employed by the

26

PLUMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. She has been unable to present any evidence that

27

there actually was a contractual relationship for defendant SUE SEGURA to interfere with.

28

And for that reason, also, summary judgment is appropriate.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SUE SEGURA AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF
RAMONA EAGLESMITH
-2-

1
2

FURTHER, the Court sustains each of defendant SUE SEGURA’s objections to
plaintiff’s evidence.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: 11/27/2012

7

/s/ John A. Mendez_____________________
Honorable John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8
9
10

Approved as to form:

11
12
13
14

________________________________
DAN SIEGEL, ESQ.
SIEGEL & YEE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SUE SEGURA AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF
RAMONA EAGLESMITH
-3-