Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01581/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01581-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 05cv1581

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS’

ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and

on behalf of all of its members,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1581 H (POR)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK

TO ENTER FINAL

JUDGMENT

 

vs.

MICHAEL AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

After considering the proposed final judgments submitted by the parties, the Court

directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the form set forth below.

This action came on for hearing on February 6, 2006 on Defendants’ Motions to

Dismiss, and on April 23, 2007, May 1, 2007, and May 18, 2007 regarding Defendants’

motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication. 

THE COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES:

1. As to all of the claims against Harry Mathis, Byron Wear, Christine Kehoe,

George Stevens, Barbara Warden, Valerie Stallings, Judy McCarty, Juan Vargas, and

Jack McGrory, the Court dismisses the action on the merits on statute of limitations

grounds as set forth in the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Defendants’ Motions to DismisstheSecondAmended Complaint dated February 8, 2006

[Docket No. 335]. Further, the Court awards costs to these Defendants.

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 766 Filed 08/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 05cv1581

2. As to all of the claims against Defendant Michael Aguirre, the Court grants

judgment in favor of Aguirre and against Plaintiff for the reasons set forth in the Court’s

Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment dated May 18, 2007

[Docket No. 737]. Further, the Court awards costs to this Defendant.

3. As to Defendant San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (“SDCERS”), the

Court enters judgment as follows for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Orders Granting

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment dated May 18, 2007 [Docket No. 737] and

June 26, 2007 [Docket No. 753]:

(a) As to the First Cause of Action for alleged violations of the First

Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant

SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(b) As to the Second Cause of Action for alleged violations of the Contracts

Clause of the United States Constitution, the Court enters judgment in favor Defendant

SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(c) As to the Third Cause of Action for alleged violations of the Takings Clause

of the United States Constitution, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant

SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(d) As to the Fourth Cause of Action for an alleged conspiracy to violate

Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court enters judgment in favor of

Defendant SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(e) As to the Ninth Cause of Action for alleged violations of the Brown Act, the

Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(f) As to the Twelfth Cause of Action for alleged Conversion of Trust, the

Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(g) As to the Fifteenth Cause of Action for alleged Breach of Contract, the

Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant SDCERS and against Plaintiff.

(h) The Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant SDCERS and against

Plaintiff regarding all Plaintiff’s claims against SDCERS for monetary relief.

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 766 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 05cv1581

(i) The Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant SDCERS and against

Plaintiff regarding all of Plaintiff’s claims against SDCERS arising out of reduction of

benefits during the 2005 labor negotiations.

(j) The Court awards costs to Defendant SDCERS.

4. As to Defendants City of San Diego, Scott Peters, Jim Madaffer, Ralph Inzunza,

Toni Atkins, Tony Young, Brian Maienschein, Donna Frye, Michael Zucchet, Cathy

Lexin, Mary Vattimo, Terri Webster, Ed Ryan, P. Lamont Ewell, Michael Uberuaga, and

Bruce Herring, the Court enters judgment as follows for the reasons set forth in the

Court’s Orders Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment dated May 18,

2007 [Docket No. 737] and June 26, 2007 [Docket No. 753]:

(a) As to the First Cause of Action for alleged violations of the First

Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendants

and against Plaintiff.

(b) As to the Second Cause of Action for alleged violations of the Contracts

Clause of the United States Constitution, the Court enters judgment in favor of

Defendants and against Plaintiff.

(c) As to the Third Cause of Action for alleged violations of the Takings Clause

of the United States Constitution, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendants and

against Plaintiff.

(d) As to the Fourth Cause of Action for an alleged conspiracy to violate

Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court enters judgment in favor of

Defendants and against Plaintiff.

(e) The Court enters judgment in favor of Defendants Young and Zucchet and

against Plaintiff as to all underfunding claims.

(e) The Court awards costs to these Defendants.

5. The Court dismisses the remaining state law claims without prejudice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) because no federal claims remain, or alternatively, under the

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 766 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 05cv1581

Colorado River doctrine, which allows a district court to dismiss a federal suit due to the

presence of concurrent state proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-01581-H-POR Document 766 Filed 08/24/07 Page 4 of 4