From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lhevan v. Spitzer

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jul 18, 2022
SACV 16-1367-GW (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2022)

Opinion

SACV 16-1367-GW (AGR)

07-18-2022

MICHAEL LAWRENCE LHEVAN, Plaintiff, v. TODD SPITZER, et al., Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GEORGE H. WU, United States District Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Fifth Amended Complaint, the records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Plaintiff's Objections. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation in the Report.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss Monell Claims 4 and 6, and Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 are granted without leave to amend;
(2) Defendant Hutchens is dismissed from this action;
(3) Defendants' motion to dismiss Claim 5 against Defendant Rackauckas and Monell Claim 5 is denied;
(4) Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is denied;
(5) Plaintiff's request to substitute Defendant Hutchens' estate is denied as moot; and
(6) Defendants Rackauckas and Orange County are ordered to respond to the sole surviving claims - Claim 5 and Monell Claim 5 - within 30 days after entry of this order.

The case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Lhevan v. Spitzer

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jul 18, 2022
SACV 16-1367-GW (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Lhevan v. Spitzer

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL LAWRENCE LHEVAN, Plaintiff, v. TODD SPITZER, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jul 18, 2022

Citations

SACV 16-1367-GW (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2022)