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)
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?