From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perkins v. City of Modesto

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
May 24, 2023
1:19-cv-00126-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 24, 2023)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00126-JLT-EPG

05-24-2023

JASON B. PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MODESTO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 101)

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j), and for the reasons set forth in the moving papers, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed motion for reconsideration. (Docs. 101, 110.) The Court reconsiders its Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 98), as to the following claims alleged in the currently operative First Amended Complaint (Doc. 22 (“FAC”)):

(1) As to the “Second Claim” for “unreasonable force” pursuant to Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, the Court DENIES summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims alleged against: (a) Officer Olson (FAC ¶ 48); (b) the City, Police Department, and Chief Carroll, for direct liability (FAC ¶ 49); and (c) the City and Police Department, for vicarious liability through Chief Carroll, Sergeant Ramar, and Officer Olson (FAC ¶ 50).

(2) As to the “Third Claim” for violation of the “Bane Act,” Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, the Court DENIES summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims alleged against: (a) the City, Police Department, and Chief Carroll, for direct liability (FAC ¶ 58); and (b) the City and Police Department, for vicarious liability through Chief Carroll, Sergeant Ramar, and Officer Olson (FAC ¶ 59).

(3) As to the “Fifth Claim” for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court DENIES summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims alleged against: (a) Chief Carroll (FAC ¶ 73); and (b) the City and Police Department, for vicarious liability through Chief Carroll, Sergeant Ramar, and Officer Olson (FAC ¶ 74).

(4) As to the “Sixth Claim” for negligence, the Court DENIES summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims alleged against: (a) Officer Olson (FAC ¶ 80); (b) Chief Carroll (FAC ¶ 81); and (3) the City and Police Department, for vicarious liability through Chief Carroll, Sergeant Ramar, and Officer Olson (FAC ¶ 82).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Perkins v. City of Modesto

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
May 24, 2023
1:19-cv-00126-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 24, 2023)
Case details for

Perkins v. City of Modesto

Case Details

Full title:JASON B. PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MODESTO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: May 24, 2023

Citations

1:19-cv-00126-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 24, 2023)