Johnson et al v. The City of Vallejo et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/6/15 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 Motions for Summary Judgment. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants City of Vallejo, Officer Dustin B. Joseph, Officer Sean G. Kenney and Vallejo Chief of Police Joseph M. Kreins 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 JOSEPH L. JOHNSON, an individual, CYNTHIA A. MITCHELL, an individual, and as successor-in-interest and personal representative of decedent MARIO D.S.M. ROMERO, 18 Plaintiffs, 19 23 THE CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipality and charter city, POLICE OFFICER DUSTIN B. JOSEPH, an individual, POLICE OFFICER SEAN G. KENNEY, an individual, VALLEJO CHIEF OF POLICE JOSEPH M. KREINS, an individual and DOES 1-5, inclusive, 24 ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION vs. 20 Case No.: 2:13-CV-01072-JAM-KJN (Consolidated with Case No.: 2:13-CV02060-JAM-KJN) Defendants. 21 22 Hearing Date: April 8, 2015 Hon. John A. Mendez Trial: October 26, 2015 25 26 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS 27 /// 28 /// 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1 The Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication of Defendants as to the complaints in these 2 related actions were heard on April 8, 2015 by the Hon. John A. Mendez. Mark A. Jones and Kristen K. 3 Preston of Jones & Dyer appeared on behalf of Defendants and moving parties City of Vallejo, Joseph 4 Kreins, Sean Kenney and Dustin Joseph. Michael P. Verna and Lawrence D. Goldberg of Bowles & 5 Verna LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Cynthia Mitchell and Joseph Johnson. Matthew D. Haley of 6 The Haley Law Offices and Fulvio F. Cajina of the Law Office of Fulvio F. Cajina appeared on behalf 7 of Plaintiffs Cynquita Martin individually and as guardian ad litem of minors Dareik Martin and Dasani 8 Martin, Ahn Khe Harris, Ahn Loc Harris, and Natasha Stephens as guardian ad litem for “N.R.”, a 9 minor. 10 The Court, after consideration of the motions, oppositions, replies and all evidence submitted 11 and, after presentation of oral argument, and good cause appearing therefore hereby makes the following 12 rulings: 13 Evidentiary Issues 14 Defendants submitted several evidentiary objections and motions to strike the declarations of 15 witnesses submitted with plaintiffs’ oppositions to these motions, including declarations from plaintiffs’ 16 retained experts Franklin E. Zimring, Barry Brodd, and Robert Snook. 17 The Court will not grant the motions in the entirety to the extent that this would require a 18 comparison with the deposition testimony of these expert witnesses and a determination of the extent to 19 which the opinions expressed in each declaration are “derivative” of prior opinions and which opinions 20 expressed in the declarations constitute new evidence. 21 22 The Court grants the motions in part and denies the motions in part and relies on testimony given at deposition for purposes of determining these motions for summary judgment/adjudication. 23 “N.R.” Claims 24 As to the First, Second and Ninth Causes of Action brought on behalf of “N.R.” as successor-in- 25 interest of the decedent Mario Romero pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure section 377.30, 26 Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Defendants offer as undisputed evidence the Genex Diagnostic 27 Report concluding that there is 0% chance that the decedent Mario Romero is the biological father of 28 “N.R.”. Plaintiffs, including Natasha Stephens as natural mother and guardian on behalf of “N.R.” 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1 stipulated to the procedure for testing of biological materials from which this Genex report derives. No 2 evidence presented on behalf of “N.R.” calls into question the validity of the Genex report. The Court 3 finds no dispute as to any material fact that “N.R.” is not the heir or issue of the decedent Mario Romero 4 and, as a matter of law the Court determines that “N.R.” lacks standing pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil 5 Procedure section 377.30 to maintain claims surviving the decedent Mario Romero. 6 As to the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action brought on behalf of “N.R.” pursuant to Ca. Code 7 of Procedure section 377.60 for the wrongful death of Mario Romero, Defendants’ motion is 8 GRANTED. Based on the Court’s findings concerning the Genex report, there exists no dispute as to 9 any fact material to the determination that “N.R.” is not the heir or issue of the decedent Mario Romero 10 and the Court determines as a matter of law that “N.R.” lacks standing pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil 11 Procedure section 377.60(a) to bring any claim as the heir or issue of the decedent Mario Romero for 12 wrongful death. Defendants offer as undisputed evidence that “N.R.” did not reside in the decedent’s 13 residence for the 180 days previous to Mario Romero’s death and that “N.R.” was not dependent on 14 Mario Romero for the 180 days prior to Mario Romero’s death for more than 50% of the minor’s 15 support. No material dispute was presented on behalf of “N.R.” in this evidence. On that basis, the 16 Court determines as a matter of law that “N.R.” lacks standing pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure 17 section 377.60(c) to bring any claim as a dependent minor for the wrongful death of Mario Romero. 18 19 As to the Fourth Cause of Action, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court’s rulings on all other claims brought on behalf of “N.R.” renders this cause of action invalid. 20 Mitchell Claims 21 As to the issue of Cynthia Mitchell’s standing to allege causes of action for the wrongful death of 22 Mario Romero pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60(a), Defendants’ motion is 23 DENIED. As to the issue of Cynthia Mitchell’s standing as the successor-in-interest of the decedent 24 Mario Romero pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure section 366.30, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 25 As to the issue of qualified immunity, disputes exist in the evidence as to facts material to 26 determination of this issue precluding summary adjudication. Summary adjudication as to this issue is 27 DENIED. 28 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1 As to the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Causes of Action against 2 Defendants Kenney and Joseph brought on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Mitchell, plaintiff has identified a 3 dispute in the evidence as to facts material to determination of these causes of action. Defendants’ 4 motion on these causes of action is DENIED. 5 The City of Vallejo did not move for summary adjudication as to the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, 6 Eighth or Eleventh Causes of Action brought on behalf of Cynthia Mitchell; however, the City of 7 Vallejo may be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees on the claims alleged in these 8 causes of action. Plaintiff has identified a dispute in the evidence as to facts material to determination of 9 these causes of action precluding summary adjudication. 10 11 The Court did not rule on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Sixth Cause of Action. 12 The Court rules that no punitive damages can be sought against Defendant City of Vallejo. 13 Johnson Claims 14 As to the First, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Causes of Action brought on behalf of 15 Joseph Johnson, plaintiff has identified a dispute in the evidence as to facts material to determination of 16 these causes of action. Defendants’ motion on these causes of action is DENIED. 17 As to the issue of qualified immunity, disputes exist in the evidence as to facts material to 18 determination of this issue precluding summary adjudication. Summary adjudication as to this issue is 19 DENIED. 20 As to the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Causes of Action brought on behalf of Joseph 21 Johnson, the City of Vallejo may be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees on the claims 22 alleged in these causes of action. Plaintiff has identified a dispute in the evidence as to facts material to 23 determination of these causes of action precluding summary adjudication. 24 The Court rules that no punitive damages can be sought against Defendant City of Vallejo. 25 Martin-Harris Claims 26 As to the Third, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin 27 individually and Ahn Loc Harris and Ahn Khe Harris, Defendant Jospeh Kreins’ motion is GRANTED. 28 Defendants present as undisputed evidence that Kreins did not personally participate in any of the 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1 conduct alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. No material dispute was presented by these plaintiffs in the 2 evidence. As a matter of law Defendant Kreins cannot be held vicariously liable for any cause of action 3 alleged. As a matter of law claims against Defendant Kreins in his official capacity are redundant of 4 claims alleged against Defendant City of Vallejo. 5 As to the Third Cause of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn Loc 6 Harris and Ahn Khe Harris, Defendants’ motion based on violations of Fifth and Eighth Amendment 7 rights is GRANTED. Plaintiffs cannot maintain these claims as a matter of law. 8 9 As to the Third Cause of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn Loc Harris and Ahn Khe Harris, the motion of Defendants Sean Kenney and Dustin Joseph is GRANTED. 10 Defendants present as undisputed evidence that Joseph and Kenney did not personally participate in any 11 of the acts upon which Plaintiffs base this claim. No material dispute was presented by plaintiffs in this 12 evidence. 13 As to the Third Cause of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn Loc 14 Harris and Ahn Khe Harris based on 42 U.S.C. section 1983, Defendant City of Vallejo’s motion is 15 GRANTED. As matter of law, that the City of Vallejo cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged 16 constitutional violations of its employees. 17 As to the Third Cause of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn Loc 18 Harris and Ahn Khe Harris based on State claims for false imprisonment and violation of Ca. Civil Code 19 section 52.1, the City of Vallejo may be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees on these 20 alleged claims. Plaintiffs have identified a dispute in the evidence as to facts material to the 21 determination of these claims precluding summary adjudication. 22 As to the Third Cause of Action brought on behalf of minors Dareik Martin and Dasani Martin 23 by and through their guardian Cynquita Martin, Defendants motion is GRANTED. Defendants present 24 as undisputed evidence that neither Dareik Martin nor Dasani Martin was subject to the conduct alleged 25 in this cause of action against the unknown defendant. No material dispute was presented by plaintiffs 26 in this evidence. 27 28 As to the Fifth Cause of Action brought on behalf of minors Dareik Martin and Dasani Martin by and through their guardian Cynquita Martin, the motion of Defendants Sean Kenney and Dustin Joseph 5 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1 is GRANTED. Defendants present as undisputed evidence that neither Defendant Kenney nor Joseph 2 was aware of the presence of the minors at the time of the incident. No material dispute was presented 3 by plaintiffs in this evidence. 4 As to the Fifth Cause of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn Loc 5 Harris and Ahn Khe Harris, the motion of Defendants Sean Kenney and Dustin Joseph is DENIED. 6 Plaintiffs have identified a dispute in the evidence as to facts material to the determination of this claim 7 precluding summary adjudication. 8 As to the Sixth Cause of Action brought on behalf of minors Dareik Martin and Dasani Martin 9 by and through their guardian Cynquita Martin, Defendants motion is GRANTED. Defendants present 10 as undisputed evidence that the minors did not have a sufficiently close relationship with the decedent 11 Mario Romero and that neither of the minors contemporaneously observed the events that resulted in 12 injury to Mario Romero. No material dispute was presented by this plaintiff in the evidence. As a 13 matter of law the Court finds that the minor cannot establish essential elements of their claims for 14 negligent infliction of emotional distress. 15 As to the Sixth Cause of Action brought on behalf of Ahn Khe Harris, Defendants’ motion is 16 GRANTED. Defendants present as undisputed evidence that Ahn Khe Harris was not married to Joseph 17 Johnson at the time of the incident and did not have a sufficiently close relationship with Joseph 18 Johnson. No material dispute was presented by this plaintiff in the evidence. On that basis, as a matter 19 of law the Court finds that Plaintiff Ahn Khe Harris cannot establish essential elements of her claim for 20 negligent infliction of emotional distress. 21 As to the claim for punitive damages brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn 22 Loc Harris and Ahn Khe Harris and Dareik Martin and Dasani Martin by and through their guardian 23 Cynquita Martin, Defendant City of Vallejo’s motion is GRANTED. 24 As to the Fourth Cause of Action brought on behalf of Cynquita Martin individually and Ahn 25 Loc Harris and Ahn Khe, based on the Court’s rulings as to the Third Cause of Action Defendants’ 26 motion is GRANTED. No claims of constitutional violations remain upon which this cause of action 27 may be based against the City of Vallejo. 28 /// 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: 7/6/2015____ /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ Judge John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 4 5 Pursuant to the court’s direction, the [Proposed] Order was provided to counsel and approval is 6 indicated by counsel’s signature below. 7 Dated: July 1, 2015 BOWLES & VERNA LLP 8 By: /s/ William T. Nagle . Lawrence Goldberg William Nagle Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cynthia Mitchell and Joseph Johnson 9 10 11 12 Dated: July 1, 2015 THE HALEY LAW OFFICES, P.C. 13 14 By: /s/ Matthew. D. Haley Matthew D. Haley Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 . 16 17 Dated: July 1, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE HALEY 18 19 By: /s/ Catherine Haley Catherine Haley Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 22 Dated: July 1, 2015 . LAW OFFICE OF FULVIO F. CAJINA 23 24 25 26 By: /s/ Fulvio F. Cajina Fulvio F. Cajina Attorney for Plaintiffs 27 28 7 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING .

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?