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)

Download PDF
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: (707) 648-4545 Fax: (707) 648-4687 MARK A. JONES, SBN 96494 KRISTEN K. PRESTON, SBN 125455 JONES & DYER A Professional Corporation 1800 J Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Tel: (916) 552-5959 Fax: (916) 442-5959 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?