Emmons et al v. Escondido, City of et al

Filing 48

ORDER Granting 42 Motion for Reconsideration. The court makes the following corrections or clarifications: (1) summary judgment is granted in favor of Craig Carter on all claims asserted against him, to the extent there is any confusion (the Orde r identifies Craig Carter as one of the movants); (2) summary judgment is granted in favor of Cory Moles on all claims asserted against him (this defendant was inadvertently omitted from the Order); (3) references to defendant Huy Quach are removed from the Order (the parties stipulated to his dismissal prior to issuance of the Order); and (4) references to defendant "Leffinwell" are corrected to "Leffingwell".Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 4/26/2016. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

MARTY EMMONS and MAGGIE
EMMONS,
Plaintiffs,

v.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO; EPD Chief
of Police CRAIG CARTER; Former
EPD Chief of Police JIM MAHER;
EPD Sgt. KEVIN TOTH; EPD
Officers ROBERT CRAIG, HUY
QUACH, JAKE HOUCHIN and
JOSEPH LEFFINGWELL,

CASE NO. 14cv1662 JM(DHB)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants City of Escondido, Craig Carter, Kevin Toth, Robert Craig, Jake
Houchin, Cory Moles and Joseph Leffingwell move to correct several perceived errors
in this court’s March 2, 2016 Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor
of Defendants and Against Plaintiffs (“Order”). Plaintiffs Marty Emmons and Maggie
Emmons do not oppose the motion.
Reconsideration is generally appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented
with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. . . . There
may also be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration." School

-1-

14cv1662

1 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
2 1993) (citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

The court makes the following

3 corrections or clarifications: (1) summary judgment is granted in favor of Craig Carter
4 on all claims asserted against him, to the extent there is any confusion (the Order
5 identifies Craig Carter as one of the movants); (2) summary judgment is granted in
6 favor of Cory Moles on all claims asserted against him (this defendant was
7 inadvertently omitted from the Order); (3) references to defendant Huy Quach are
8 removed from the Order (the parties stipulated to his dismissal prior to issuance of the
9 Order); and (4) references to defendant “Leffinwell” are corrected to “Leffingwell.”
10

In sum, the court grants the motion for reconsideration and instructs the Clerk

11 of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all claims
12 alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 DATED: April 26, 2016
15

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge

16
17

cc:

All parties

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv1662