From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nehara v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 8, 2011
Case No. 1:10-CV-00491-OWW-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-CV-00491-OWW-JLT.

August 8, 2011

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672, Attorney General of California, VINCENT J. SCALLY, JR., State Bar No. 58223, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, ANDREA R. AUSTIN, State Bar No. 173630, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT


On August 1, 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger in Courtroom 3 of the above-referenced court. Patrick Vardapour of Anderson Associates appeared by telephone on behalf of plaintiff. Andrea R. Austin, Deputy Attorney General with the Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, appeared by telephone on behalf of defendants.

After considering the moving and opposing papers as well as oral argument by counsel, the Court issued a memorandum of decision finding plaintiff's state law tort claims, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against North Kern State Prison (NKSP) are barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court further finds plaintiff's state law tort claims against NKSP and all individual defendants are barred because plaintiff failed to file a timely and proper claim with the State of California Victim Compensation and Government Claim Board, as required by law. A true and correct copy of the Court's memorandum of decision is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Accordingly this Court hereby orders the following:

Plaintiff's state law tort claims against NKSP and the individually named defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice;

This Court further orders that any amended complaint shall be filed with this Court within fifteen (15) days of the date of electronic service of the Court's memorandum and decision and that defendants will have fifteen (15) days to respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2011


Summaries of

Nehara v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 8, 2011
Case No. 1:10-CV-00491-OWW-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011)
Case details for

Nehara v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAM NEHARA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 8, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:10-CV-00491-OWW-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011)