Summary
granting motion for protective order protecting County Sheriff from deposition as high-ranking official
Summary of this case from Sargent v. City of SeattleOpinion
Case No. CV 05-07602 DDP (SHx).
August 7, 2006
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication of issues. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. After reviewing the submissions of the parties and considering the arguments contained therein, the Court denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Juan Avalos, brought this case as an individual and as a representative of a class. He seeks to represent a class whose defining characteristics are that "(1) they were over-detained in the Los Angeles County Jail system, (2) their over-detentions were recognized by officials of that system, and (3) they fraudulently, oppressively, and/or with threats, and/or extortionately were duped into compromising their monetary claims for their over-detentions for sums far less than those claims were worth." (First Amended Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 55.) The Plaintiff makes four claims: (1) the over-detentions violate Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (2) the Defendants conspire to engage in conduct that results in over-detentions; (3) the Defendants engage in racketeering activities; and (4) the Defendants conspire to violate the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. The only remaining Defendants in this case are Sheriff Leroy Baca and the DOE defendants.
The Plaintiff now seeks summary adjudication of four issues: (1) the Plaintiff was over-detained by the Defendants, (2) the Plaintiff's over-detention claim was not settled, (3) Baca has a custom of over-detentions in Los Angeles County jail, and (4) the Plaintiff is not barred from pursuing his over-detention claim by reason of settlement, release, consent, or compromise.
II. DISCUSSION
1. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 outlines the requirements for summary judgment motions. A party seeking to recover upon a claim may move for summary judgment in its favor "upon all or any part thereof." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment and summary adjudication are appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
A genuine issue exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," and material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of the nonmoving party's claim is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Id. at 252. In determining a motion for summary judgment, all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 255. Because summary judgment is a "drastic device" cutting off a party's right to present its case to a jury, the moving party bears a "heavy burden" of demonstrating the absence of any triable issue of material fact.Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass'n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999).
B. Analysis
The Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of four issues. In his moving papers, the Plaintiff presents excerpts from his deposition as evidence for three of the four issues. (Mot. 4-19.) For the fourth issue, the Plaintiff references evidence presented in a related case, Mortimer v. Baca, CV 00-13002 DDP (SHx). (Mot. 19.) The Plaintiff does not present any argument regarding his motion. The Defendant, Baca, opposes this motion for summary judgment asserting that instead the Court should find summary judgment in his favor. The Court examines each of the four issues upon which the Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication.
1. Issue One: The Plaintiff was Over-detained by the Defendants
In support of his motion for summary adjudication of this issue, the Plaintiff merely presents excerpts from his deposition. The Plaintiff has not met his burden demonstrating that he was indeed over-detained. This assertion from the Plaintiff is not enough to prevail on a motion for summary adjudication without further support. The Plaintiff has not set forth evidence of what his release date should have been. The Court cannot determine from the deposition whether the Plaintiff was over-detained and if so how long his over-detention might have been. In the Plaintiff's deposition, he states that he did not know when he was to be released. (Dep. 23-24.) The Court denies the motion for summary adjudication of this issue. The Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was over-detained.
2. Issue Two: The Plaintiff's Over-detention Claim was not Settled
Again, in support of his motion for summary adjudication of this issue, the Plaintiff presents excerpts from his deposition without any accompanying argument or explanation. As the Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate he was over-detained, the Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that any claim regarding alleged over-detention went unsettled. The Court denies the motion for summary adjudication of this issue.
3. Issue Three: The Defendant Baca has a Custom of Over-detention
In support of his motion for summary adjudication of this issue, the Plaintiff states that "[b]ased on evidence adduced and put before the court in Mortimer v. Baca, . . . plaintiff also is entitled to summary adjudication of the issue that there is a custom of over-detentions in the Los Angeles County jail system." (Mot. 19.) Once again, the Plaintiff has not met his burden. The Plaintiff has not set forth any specific allegations or argument regarding custom. He does not describe the custom. For example, he does not set forth any information on how many people are over-detained or how long people are being over-detained. Simply referencing evidence in another case (where a custom of over-detention has not yet been established by the Court) is not enough to meet the heavy burden required for summary adjudication of issues. The Court denies the motion for summary adjudication of this issue.
4. Issue Four: The Plaintiff is not Barred from Pursuing his Over-Detention Claim by Reason of Settlement, Release, Consent, or Compromise
Again, in support of his motion for summary adjudication of this issue, the Plaintiff presents excerpts from his deposition without any accompanying argument or explanation. First, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate he was over-detained at all. Additionally, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff entered into a voluntary settlement agreement regarding claims related to his incarceration. The parties dispute whether the Plaintiff understood what he was signing. There are genuine issues of fact regarding the purported settlement agreement, release, and check issued to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the summary adjudication of this issues (in either the Plaintiff or the Defendant's favor) is inappropriate. The Court denies the motion for summary adjudication of this issue.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the motion for summary adjudication in its entirety. Additionally, in his reply brief the Plaintiff states that he seeks to substitute three names of his Unknown Defendants for the names of officers that he has now learned. It is improper to raise additional arguments and requests in a reply brief. The Plaintiff must bring a separate motion to add defendants at this stage.
IT IS SO ORDERED.