Howard Jones Investments, LLC v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/20/2016 DISMISSING the first and second causes of action of the 27 First Amended Complaint against Defendant City of Sacramento; ORDERING Defendant Matt Armstrong to file a responsive pleading to the first and second causes of action of the 27 First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days. (Michel, G.)

1

RIVERA & ASSOCIATES

2

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 310
Sacramento, California 95815

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Jesse M. Rivera, CSN 84259
Shanan L. Hewitt, CSN 200168
Jonathan B. Paul, CSN 215884
Jill B. Nathan, CSN 186136
Jamil Ghannam, CSN 300730

Attorneys for Defendants,
City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department,
Matt Armstrong, Michael Benner, Sam Somers Jr.

10

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS, LLC,
LOWELLA OLDHAM; ADA LEEPER;
DOLLY LEEPER; ERICKA WARD; and
ALONZO MEDLEY,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MATT ARMSTRONG; MICHAEL
BENNER; SAM SOMERS, JR.; and DOES
1 through20,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No: 2:15-cv-00954 JAM KJN
ORDER

On April 21, 2016 this Court issued the following order:
“[T]he Court STAYS this action as to the third through sixth causes of
action. All claims asserted by Plaintiff Howard Jones are stayed pending
resolution of the state proceeding. As to the tenants, the Court DISMISSES
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the first and second causes of action against

Proposed Order
Page 1

1

Defendant City of Sacramento and DENIES the motion to dismiss those two
claims against Defendant Armstrong. The Tenant Plaintiffs’ amended
complaint, if any, must be filed within (20) days of the date of this order.
Defendants’ responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days thereafter.”

2
3
4

The Tenant Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint to address the first and

5

second causes of action against Defendant City of Sacramento, which were dismissed with leave

6

to amend.

7

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the first and second

8

causes of action in the first amended complaint against Defendant City of Sacramento are

9

dismissed. Defendants’ responsive pleading to the first and second causes of action against

10

Defendant Armstrong must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this order.

11
12
13
14
15

Date: May 20, 2016

/s/ John A. Mendez
JOHN A. MENDEZ
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Proposed Order
Page 2