Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01662/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01662-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTY EMMONS and MAGGIE

EMMONS,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv1662 JM(DHB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

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,

Defendants.

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

Case 3:14-cv-01662-JM-DHB Document 48 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993) (citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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 Order

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.”

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

of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all claims

alleged in the First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2016

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 2 - 14cv1662

Case 3:14-cv-01662-JM-DHB Document 48 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 2