Bonilla et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al.

Filing 96

ORDER signed by District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi on 5/13/2021 DISMISSING all of Plaintiffs' claims against Peterson pursuant to the 93 , 94 Order and DISMISSING Highway Patrol pursuant to the 93 Order. There being no remaining claims in this case, the Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to enter final judgment and close the case. CASE CLOSED. (Tupolo, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GUILLERMO BONILLA, SANDRA
AMAYA BONILLA,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AN )
AGENEY OF THE STATE OF
)
CALIFORNIA; OFFER MCKENZIE
)
AND SGT. PETERSON and DOES 1 )
TO 50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

2:16-cv-01742 LEK

ORDER TERMINATING PARTIES

23

On April 22, 2021, the following orders were entered:

24

the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

25

(“Summary Judgment Order”); and the Order Granting Defendants’

26

Motion to Dismiss Defendant Peterson for Failure to Serve

27

(“Dismissal Order”).

28

summary judgment in favor of Defendants California Highway

29

Patrol (“Highway Patrol”) and Muriel McKenzie (“McKenzie” and

30

collectively “Defendants”) as to all of Plaintiffs Guillermo

31

Bonilla and Sandra Amaya Bonilla’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims against

32

them.

[Dkt. nos. 93, 94. 1]

This Court granted

Summary Judgment Order, 2021 WL 1587520, at *10.

The

The Summary Judgment Order is also available at 2021 WL
1587520, and the Dismissal Order is also available at 2021 WL
1584064.
1

1

Clerk’s Office was directed to terminate McKenzie as a party

2

immediately, but it was directed to wait thirty days to

3

terminate the Highway Patrol as a party.

4

Id.

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Highway Patrol

5

Sergeant Peterson (“Peterson”) were dismissed, without

6

prejudice, because of Plaintiffs’ failure to serve him.

7

Dismissal Order, 2021 WL 1584064, at *4.

8

was subject to the Highway Patrol’s compliance with this Court’s

9

order “to file an affidavit or declaration, by someone with

However, the dismissal

10

personal knowledge of the relevant Highway Patrol records,

11

certifying that the address provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel on

12

June 20, 2017 was Peterson’s last known address at that time.”

13

Id. at *3-4.

14

declaration was May 7, 2021.

15

The deadline for the filing of the affidavit or
Id. at *4.

On May 6, 2021, the Highway Patrol filed the

16

Declaration of Katherine Nikolai Regarding Court’s April 22,

17

2021 Order [ECF 94] (“Nikolai Declaration”).

18

The Court FINDS that the Nikolai Declaration complies with the

19

requirements of the Dismissal Order.

20

confirms that all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Peterson are

21

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to serve.

22

Office is DIRECTED to terminate Peterson as a party immediately,

23

pursuant to the Dismissal Order and the instant Order.

2

[Dkt. no. 95.]

The Court therefore

The Clerk’s

1

Because the Highway Patrol has complied with the

2

requirements of the Dismissal Order, the Clerk’s Office is also

3

DIRECTED to terminate the Highway Patrol as a party immediately,

4

pursuant to the Summary Judgment Order.

5

remaining claims in this case, the Clerk’s Office is further

6

DIRECTED to enter final judgment and close the case.

There being no

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, May 13, 2021.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

GUILLERMO BONILLA, ET AL. VS. CALIFFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL;
2:16-CV-01742 LEK; ORDER TERMINATING PARTIES

3