Opinion
2:16-cv-09453-MWF-MAR
07-18-2024
WILLIAM ROBERT HERRERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PALMDALE, et al., Defendants.
JUDGMENT
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs William Robert Herrera, Mona Molina Herrera, Noelani Pila Herrera, and William Ryan Herrera (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against Defendants City of Palmdale (the “City”), Anne Ambrose, Bud Davis, George Schneider, James Purtee, Mark Dyler, Nardy Lopez, Noel James Doran, Officer Anthony Bonelli, Officer Blakely, Officer Miller, Officer Raposas, Robe Bruce, and Sara Shreves (collectively, “City Defendants”). Plaintiffs also filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”) and Deputy Charles Dana, Deputy Brandon Jacobs, Deputy Gustavo Munoz, Deputy Richard Leon, Deputy Frank Arciodiancono, Deputy John Gallagher, Deputy Scott Sorrow, Deputy Deshaun Miles, Deputy Steve Diaz, and Deputy Wyatt Waldron (the “Individual County Defendants”).
Now, therefore, pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment in this action be entered as follows:
1. On Plaintiffs' claim for relief for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against City Defendants: Plaintiffs allege that City Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.
a. On January 12, 2024, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of City Defendants with respect to all alleged constitutional violations except those arising under the Fourth Amendment. (Order Re: Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and Defendants' Ex Parte Applications (Docket No. 244)).
b. On July 16, 2024, the Court granted City Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Terminating Sanctions with respect to the remaining allegations arising under the Fourth Amendment.
(Order Granting Defendants' Ex Parte Applications for Terminating Sanctions (Docket No. 274)).
c. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of City Defendants and against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall take nothing on their § 1983 claim against City Defendants.
2. On Plaintiffs' claim for relief for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant County of Los Angeles: Plaintiffs allege that the County violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.
a. On October 8, 2020, the Court granted the County's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for Monell liability. (Order Re: Motions to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 149)). Although the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend, Plaintiffs chose to stand on the allegations in their Second Amended Complaint.
b. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of the County and against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall take nothing on their § 1983 claim against the County.
3. On Plaintiffs' claim for relief for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Individual County Defendants: Plaintiffs allege that Individual County Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.
a. On January 10, 2024, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Individual County Defendants for all alleged constitutional violations based on Plaintiffs' admissions that no Individual County Defendant violated their constitutional
rights. (Order Re: Defendants' Motions to dismiss, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and Defendants' Ex Parte Applications (Docket No. 243) at 10-11).
b. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Individual County Defendants and against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall take nothing on their § 1983 claim against Individual County Defendants.
4. Defendants are awarded their costs as provided by law.