Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00954/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00954-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matt Armstrong
Defendant
Michael Benner
Defendant
City of Sacramento
Defendant
City of Sacramento Police Department
Defendant
Howard Jones Investments, LLC
Plaintiff
Ada Leeper
Plaintiff
Dolly Leeper
Plaintiff
Alonzo Medley
Plaintiff
Lowella Oldham
Plaintiff
Sam Somers Jr.
Defendant
Ericka Ward
Plaintiff

Document Text:

Proposed Order 

Page 1 

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

RIVERA & ASSOCIATES 

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 310 

Sacramento, California 95815 

Tel: 916-922-1200 Fax: 916 922-1303 

Email: jesse@jmr-law.net 

Jesse M. Rivera, CSN 84259 

Shanan L. Hewitt, CSN 200168 

Jonathan B. Paul, CSN 215884 

Jill B. Nathan, CSN 186136 

Jamil Ghannam, CSN 300730 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department, 

Matt Armstrong, Michael Benner, Sam Somers Jr. 

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

On April 21, 2016 this Court issued the following order: 

 “[T]he Court STAYS this action as to the third through sixth causes of 

action. All claims asserted by Plaintiff Howard Jones are stayed pending 

resolution of the state proceeding. As to the tenants, the Court DISMISSES 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the first and second causes of action against 

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

LOWELLA OLDHAM; ADA LEEPER; 

DOLLY LEEPER; ERICKA WARD; and 

ALONZO MEDLEY, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF 

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

MATT ARMSTRONG; MICHAEL 

BENNER; SAM SOMERS, JR.; and DOES 

1 through20, 

 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No: 2:15-cv-00954 JAM KJN 

 ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00954-DAD-SCR Document 45 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 2
Proposed Order 

Page 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

Defendant City of Sacramento and DENIES the motion to dismiss those two 

claims against Defendant Armstrong. The Tenant Plaintiffs’ amended 

complaint, if any, must be filed within (20) days of the date of this order. 

Defendants’ responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days thereafter.” 

The Tenant Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint to address the first and 

second causes of action against Defendant City of Sacramento, which were dismissed with leave 

to amend. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the first and second 

causes of action in the first amended complaint against Defendant City of Sacramento are 

dismissed. Defendants’ responsive pleading to the first and second causes of action against 

Defendant Armstrong must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this order. 

Date: May 20, 2016 /s/ John A. Mendez JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00954-DAD-SCR Document 45 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2