Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00216/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00216-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Merced
Defendant
L. McAbee
Defendant
Andrew Moua
Plaintiff
Unknown Merced Police Officers
Defendant

Document Text:

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-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY OF MERCED’S

M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUM M ARY ADJUDICATION

G:\docs\ATimken\Orders To Be Signed\06cv216.sum.jud.wpd 1:06-CV-00216-OWW-SMS

DALE L. ALLEN, JR., # 145279

DIRK D. LARSEN, # 246028

LOW, BALL & LYNCH

505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-2584

Telephone (415) 981-6630

Facsimile (415) 982-1634

Email: dallen@lowball.com

 dlarsen@lowball.com

Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF MERCED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW MOUA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

L. McABEE; CITY OF MERCED; UNKNOWN

MERCED POLICE OFFICERS DOES 1-20; does

21-30,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 1:06-CV-00216-OWW-SMS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT CITY OF

MERCED’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

Date: October 15, 2007 

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 3

Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger

Defendant CITY OF MERCED’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment, or in the

alternative, summary adjudication, came on regularly for hearing on October 15, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in

Courtroom 3 of the above-entitled court, the Hon. Oliver W. Wanger presiding. James C. Holland, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of plaintiff ANDREW MOUA (“Plaintiff”), and Dale L. Allen, Jr., Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendant. After reviewing the papers in support of and opposition to the motion, and after

oral argument, the Court rules as follows:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim, brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, of racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 11/21/07 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-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY OF MERCED’S

M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUM M ARY ADJUDICATION

G:\docs\ATimken\Orders To Be Signed\06cv216.sum.jud.wpd 1:06-CV-00216-OWW-SMS

U.S. Constitution, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion for summary adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

2. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim, brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion for summary adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

3. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim, brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary

adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

4. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim, brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, of restriction of free association in violation of the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion for summary adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

5. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s Monell claim, brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, that Defendant is liable for the actions of its officers by

countenancing, allowing, condoning or knowingly ratifying such actions or inactions, or by failing to

adequately train, supervise, direct, discipline and control the conduct of such officers, and Defendant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of

this claim is GRANTED.

6. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s state common law claim for

violation of privacy, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion for summary adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

7. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s state common law claim for

infliction of emotional distress, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

8. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s state common law claim for

harassment, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 11/21/07 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-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY OF MERCED’S

M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUM M ARY ADJUDICATION

G:\docs\ATimken\Orders To Be Signed\06cv216.sum.jud.wpd 1:06-CV-00216-OWW-SMS

for summary adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

9. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim of violation of free

speech rights under Art. I § 2 of the Constitution of the State of California, and Defendant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this claim is

GRANTED.

10. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim of violation of

probable cause to arrest rights under Art. I § 13 of the Constitution of the State of California, and

Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary

adjudication of this claim is GRANTED.

11. No genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff’s claim for violation of civil

rights pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 (the “Bane Act”), and Defendant is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this claim is

GRANTED.

12. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the search and seizure at issue

violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and whether

Defendant’s officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit and liability. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion for summary adjudication of this claim is DENIED.

13. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiff’s state common law claim for

false arrest and imprisonment. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this claim

is DENIED.

14. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiff’s state common law claim for

trespass. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this claim is DENIED.

15. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiff’s state common law claim for

trespass to chattels / conversion. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of this

claim is DENIED.

In light of the above adjudications, the following claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE: (1) racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution; (2) excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (3)

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 11/21/07 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-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY OF MERCED’S

M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUM M ARY ADJUDICATION

G:\docs\ATimken\Orders To Be Signed\06cv216.sum.jud.wpd 1:06-CV-00216-OWW-SMS

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (4) restriction of free association

in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (5) Monell claim for municipal liability;

(6) state common law claim for violation of privacy; (7) state common law claim for infliction of

emotional distress; (8) state common law claim for harassment; (9) state constitutional claim for

violation of free speech rights (Art. I § 2); (10) state constitutional claim for violation of probable cause

to arrest rights (Art. I § 13); and (11) state statutory claim for violation of civil rights pursuant to

California Civil Code § 52.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19 , 2007.

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 11/21/07 Page 4 of 4