Baires et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 251

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer re 246 Request for Clarification. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

DORA BAIRES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 09-05171 CRB
ORDER CLARIFYING
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.

/

Defendants the County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Kern Medical
Center, Lerdo Detention Facility, Sheriff Youngblood and Knosrow Mostofi, M.D.
(collectively, “County Defendants”) have filed a Request for Clarification of the Court’s
December 13, 2013 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (“Order,”
dkt. 244). See Request (dkt. 246). Plaintiffs have filed a Response to that Request, arguing
that “[t]here is little need for clarification as most points raised by defendants’ filing are
undisputed.” See Response (dkt. 247) at 1. Plaintiffs nonetheless seek clarification of three
points related to Defendants’ Request. See id. at 2-5.
Accordingly, the Court clarifies the Order as follows.

1

First, because the County Defendants moved for summary judgment collectively,

2

unless otherwise stated,1 references to “the County” in the Order “appl[y] to each of the Kern

3

County Defendants against which claims were made.” See Request at 1. Thus, for example,

4

when the Court granted the County’s Miranda motion on the IIED claim, see Order at 1, that

5

ruling applied to Kern County, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Kern Medical Center,

6

Lerdo Detention Facility, Sheriff Youngblood and Dr. Mostofi.

7

Second, in granting the County Defendants’ Baires motion “as to . . . punitive

8

damages against the County,” see id., the Court agreed with the County Defendants’ only

9

argument as to punitive damages, which was that Baires cannot recover such damages

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

“against Kern County, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, Lerdo Detention Facility or Kern

11

Medical Center.” See Mot. (dkt. 209) at 48 (citing City of Newport v. Fact Concert, Inc.,

12

453 U.S. 247, 271 (1982)). The Court’s holding does not apply to any other County

13

Defendants.

14

Third, in granting the County Defendants’ Baires motion “as to the . . . negligence

15

claim other than the failure to summon medical care,” see Order at 1, the Court did not grant

16

summary judgment for any County Defendants on the failure to summon medical care (Cal.

17

Gov. Code § 845.6) claim.

18

Fourth, in granting the County Defendants’ Baires motion “as to the survival claim,”

19

id., the Court disposed of the survival claim as to all County Defendants, without exception.2

20

Finally, in denying the County Defendants’ Baires motion “as to all remaining

21

claims,” id., the Court did not grant summary judgment for any County Defendants on

22

Baires’s deliberate indifference claim. The Court did not specify whether it found persuasive

23

Baires’s argument that the County Defendants aside from Mostofi are liable because Mostofi

24

was a final policymaker, or Baires’s argument that there was a County policy of deliberate

25
26
27
28

1

See, e.g., Order at 1 n.2 (carving out Baires’s medical malpractice claim against Dr. Mostofi
as remaining viable, despite Court’s grant of summary judgment on medical malpractice claim against
the other County Defendants).
2

The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not even address the survival claim in their opposition brief.
See generally Opp’n to MSJ (dkt. 216).
2

1

indifference. See Opp’n to MSJ at 31-37. The Court now clarifies that it does not find that

2

Mostofi was a final policymaker.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: January 10, 2014

6

CHARLES R. BREYER

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2009\5171\order amending order re MSJs.wpd

3