Opinion
2:20-cv-03959
06-29-2021
JOSEPH BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO GARCIA, NICOLE DAVIS TINKHAM, NATALIE PARISKY, KELLY EMLING, MICHAEL SUZUKI, JENNY BROWN, ALBERT MENASTER, RUBEN MARQUEZ, TODD MONTROSE, MARK RIDLEYTHOMAS, LAW OFFICES OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants
ANDREW BAUM - State Bar No. 190397 MICHAEL L. SMITH - State Bar No. 298917 GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP Attorneys for Defendants Law Offices Of The Los Angeles County Public Defender, County Of Los Angeles, Ricardo Garcia, Nicole Davis Tinkham, Natalie Parisky, Kelly Emling, Michael Suzuki, Jenny Brown, Albert Menaster, Ruben Marquez, Todd Montrose, and Mark Ridley Thomas
ANDREW BAUM - State Bar No. 190397 MICHAEL L. SMITH - State Bar No. 298917 GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP Attorneys for Defendants Law Offices Of The Los Angeles County Public Defender, County Of Los Angeles, Ricardo Garcia, Nicole Davis Tinkham, Natalie Parisky, Kelly Emling, Michael Suzuki, Jenny Brown, Albert Menaster, Ruben Marquez, Todd Montrose, and Mark Ridley Thomas
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Honorable Andre Birotte Jr. United States District Court Judge
On June 17, 2021, the Court Granted Defendants Nicole Davis Tinkham, Natalie Parisky, Kelly Emling, Michael Suzuki, Jenny Brown, Albert Menaster, Ruben Marque, Todd Montrose, Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender, and County of Los Angeles' February 22, 2021 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Bennett's Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 37) without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 52.)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Ricardo Garcia, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Nicole Davis Tinkham, Natalie Parisky, Kelly Emling, Michael Suzuki, Jenny Brown, Albert Menaster, Ruben Marque, Todd Montrose, Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender, and County of Los Angeles as to Plaintiffs entire Fourth Amended Complaint.
As noted in the Court's June 17, 2021 Ruling, Plaintiff did not assert a cause of action against Defendants Garcia and Ridley-Thomas in his Fourth Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 52, p. 1, n.1.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT Plaintiff shall receive no relief from his Fourth Amended Complaint, and that Defendants, as the prevailing parties, shall be entitled to an award of costs that they may seek in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED