Estate of Anton Pat Barrett, et al. v. City of Vallejo, et al.

Filing 51

ORDER AFTER HEARING signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/29/2015 ORDERING 50 Defendants 37 Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; the Court further ORDERS dismissal of the Second Cause of Action in its entirety and dismissal of all DOE defendants. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

CLAUDIA QUINTANA,
City Attorney, SBN 178613
BY: KELLY J. TRUJILLO,
Deputy City Attorney, SBN 244286
CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall
555 Santa Clara Street, P.O. Box 3068
Vallejo, CA 94590
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MARK A. JONES, SBN 96494
KRISTEN K. PRESTON, SBN 125455
JONES & DYER
A Professional Corporation
1800 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal corporation;
SEAN KENNEY; WAYLON BOYCE, MARK THOMPSON
individually and in their official capacities as Police Officers for the CITY OF VALLEJO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

EASTERN DISTRICT
THE ESTATE OF ANTON BARRETT, by
and through its representatives ANTON
FRANK
BARRETT,
PASHANEY
BARRETT AND A.P.B., a minor, by and
through his guardian ad litem TASHA
PERRY; ANTON FRANK BARRETT,
individually, PASHANEY BARRETT,
individually and A.P.B., a minor, by and
through his guardian ad litem, TASHA
PERRY,

20

Plaintiffs,

21

vs.

22

CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal
corporation; SEAN KENNEY; WAYLON
BOYCE, MARK THOMPSON; AND
DOES 1-50, inclusive; individually and in
their official capacities as Police Officers
for the CITY OF VALLEJO,

23
24
25
26

Case No.: 2:13-CV-00846-JAM-CKD
ORDER AFTER HEARING ON
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF ISSUES
Date: 4-22-15
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom 6, 14th Floor
Hon. John A. Mendez
Trial Date: July 20, 2015
Pre-Trial Conference: June 5, 2015

Defendants.

27

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on behalf of defendants came on for hearing

28

on April 22, 2015. Kristen K. Preston of Jones & Dyer and Kelly J. Trujillo, Deputy City Attorney for
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ISSUES

1

the City of Vallejo appeared on behalf of the Defendants and moving parties. Adante D. Pointer

2

appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

3

The Court, having read and considered the moving and opposing papers and argument presented

4

by counsel at the hearing and good cause appearing hereby makes the following rulings on Defendants’

5

Motion related to causes of action pleaded in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint:

6

As to the First Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs have

7

identified disputes in the evidence as to material facts bearing on Plaintiffs’ claim for excessive force;

8

As to the Third Cause of Action, the Defendant Kenney’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs have

9

identified disputes in the evidence as to material facts bearing on intent to harm, the theory upon which

10

Plaintiffs’ pursue their claim for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights for deprivation of their

11

familial relationship with the decedent ANTON BARRETT;

12
13
14

As to the Fourth Cause of Action, based on the Court’s ruling as to the First Cause of Action,
Defendant Kenney’s motion is DENIED;
As to the Fifth Cause of Action, Defendant City of Vallejo’s motion is GRANTED. There are is

15

no dispute as to any material issue of fact and, as a matter of law, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs

16

cannot maintain a cause of action for municipal liability arising out of any incident alleged in the

17

complaint.

18

As to the Sixth Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs have

19

identified disputes in the evidence as to material facts bearing on the essential element of reasonableness

20

of the Defendant’s actions;

21

As to the Seventh Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is GRANTED related to the

22

claims of Plaintiff ESTATE OF ANTON BARRETT. Plaintiff has not identified an act constituting

23

threat, intimidation or violence that is independent of the alleged use of excessive force and, as a matter

24

of law, the Court rules that plaintiff ESTATE OF ANTON BARRETT cannot maintain its claim for

25

violation of California Civil Code section 52.1 (Bane Act);

26

As to the Eighth Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is GRANTED related to the

27

claims of Plaintiff ESTATE OF ANTON BARRETT. Plaintiff has not identified any dispute in the

28

evidence that Defendant Kenney’s alleged conduct was motivated by race and, as a matter of law,
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ISSUES

1

Plaintiff ESTATE OF BARRETT cannot maintain its claim for violation of California Civil Code

2

section 51.7. Through counsel Plaintiffs confirm that the allegations contained in this cause of action as

3

to Plaintiff ANTON FRANK BARRETT were not directed at Defendant Kenney.

4

As to the Ninth Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs have

5

identified disputes in the evidence as to material facts bearing on the essential element of Defendant

6

Kenney’s intent to harm decedent ANTON BARRETT;

7

As to the Tenth Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff ESTATE

8

OF ANTON BARRETT has identified disputes in the evidence as to material facts bearing on the

9

essential elements of Plaintiff’s claim for assault and battery;

10

As to the Eleventh Cause of Action, Defendant Kenney’s motion is GRANTED. There is no

11

dispute in the evidence as to any material fact bearing on the issue of contemporaneous observation by

12

ANTON FRANK BARRETT of injuries to the decedent ANTON BARRETT and, as a matter of law,

13

Plaintiff ANTON FRANK BARRETT cannot maintain a cause of action for negligent infliction of

14

emotional distress;

15
16
17

The Court further orders dismissal of the Second Cause of Action in its entirety and dismissal of
all DOE defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: _April 29, 2015

20
21

/s/ John A. Mendez_____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pursuant to the court’s direction, the Order was provided to counsel and approval is indicated by

22

counsel’s signature below.

23

Dated: April 28, 2015

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

24
25
26

By: /a/ Adante Pointer
JOHN BURRIS
ADANTE POINTER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ISSUES