Felarca et al v. Birgeneau et al

Filing 517

ORDER: AMENDMENT TO JANUARY 27, 2016 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/24/16. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 YVETTE FELARCA, ET AL., Case No. 11-cv-05719-YGR Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 9 ROBERT J. BIRGENEAU, ET AL., AMENDMENT TO JANUARY 27, 2016 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California The Court hereby AMENDS its January 27, 2016 Order Granting In Part And Denying In 12 Part Motions For Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 512) to reflect that the Cross-Motion of the 13 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Defendants (Dkt. No. 434) is DENIED as to the direct excessive 14 force claim by Plaintiff Joshua Anderson against Defendant Buckhout for the same reasons the 15 motion was denied on the excessive force claims against Defendants Obichere, Armijo and Garcia. 16 While the order indicated that Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint alleged a direct claim 17 by Joshua Anderson against Buckhout (Dkt. No. 512 at 17:15), recounted the evidence of 18 excessive force submitted in opposition by Joshua Anderson against him (id. at 19:11-14), and 19 stated that summary judgment on the direct excessive force claims was denied with exceptions 20 only as to Defendants Decoulode, Wilson, Buschheuter, and Rodrigues (id. at 29:24-28), the Order 21 neglected to specify in the introduction and conclusion that the summary judgment motion was 22 denied as to the direct excessive force claim by Plaintiff Joshua Anderson against Defendant 23 Buckhout. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: February 24, 2016 26 27 28 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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?