Bhatnagar v. Ingrassia et al

Filing 191

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 136 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 145 Motion for Summary Judgment. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABHINAV BHATNAGAR, Plaintiff, v. JASON INGRASSIA, et al., Defendants. /

No. C 07-02669 CRB ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

Now pending before the Court are the parties' motions for summary judgment. After carefully considering the parties' papers, and after holding a hearing, the Court rules as follows: 1. San Ramon's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The evidence in

the summary judgment record is insufficient to support a finding for plaintiff on the Monell claim, and since San Ramon was never Ingrassia's employer it cannot be vicariously liable for Ingrassia's conduct. San Ramon is immune from liability on plaintiff's state law claims arising from San Ramon's own conduct. 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim is

DENIED in light of the dispute as to plaintiff's performance on the field sobriety test and the dispute as to whether the PAS test was performed after plaintiff's arrest. 3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the abuse of process claim is

GRANTED on the ground that defendants are immune pursuant to Civil Code section 821.6.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Contra Costa County's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim

is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks to hold Contra Costa liable for its own negligence as Contra Costa has immunity for such liability; the negligence claim may go forward as to defendant Ingrassia's negligence and Contra Costa's vicarious liability for such negligence. 5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the emotional distress claim is

GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of his arrest; however, the claim may go forward with respect to the harassing telephone calls and other retaliatory/harassing conduct. The nature of the calls and their timing support a reasonable inference that Ingrassia was responsible for the calls. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2008

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2007\2669\orderresjudgementmotions.wpd

2