William J. Richards v. County of San Bernardino
William J. Richards v. County of San Bernardino
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. RICHARDS, Case No. 5:17-cv-00497-SJO-SP 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
13 v. District Judge: Hon. S. James Otero
14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, MARK NOURSE, NORMAN 15 PARENT, TOM BRADFORD, JOHN NAVARRO, DANIEL GREGONIS, 16 NORMAN SPERBER, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,, 17 Defendants. 18
19 20 Defendants Daniel Gregonis, Norman Sperber, Tom Bradford, John Navarro, 21 Mark Nourse, Norman Parent, and County of San Bernardino’s motions for 22 summary judgment, or in the alternative partial summary judgment brought under 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, on the Complaint of Plaintiff William J. 24 Richards (“Plaintiff”), came on regularly before the Honorable S. James Otero for 25 hearing on August 26, 2019. Susan Coleman appeared for Defendants, and 26 attorneys Caitlin Weisberg and Marilyn Bednarski appeared for Plaintiff. 27 The Court having read and duly considered the moving, opposing, and reply 28 documents, and having duly considered all evidence and argument presented in 1 | connection therewith, enters the following order on Defendants’ motion for 2 | Summary Judgment as follows: 3 | AS TO DEFENDANTS GREGONIS, SPERBER, NOURSE, PARENT, 4 | BRADFORD AND NAVARRO: 5 1) Defendants did not violate Plaintiffs rights. 6 2) This Court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity, as it found no 7 | violation of rights. 8 | AS TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO: 9 (1) Plaintiff's claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Dept. of Social 10 | Services,
436 U.S. 658,
56 L. Ed. 2d 611,
98 S. Ct. 2018(1978) fails because he 11 | suffered no constitutional violation and there is no evidence of an unconstitutional 12 | policy, practice, custom, lack of training, or ratification. 13 Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, 14 Defendants Daniel Gregonis, Norman Sperber, Tom Bradford, John Navarro, 15 | Mark Nourse, Norman Parent, and County of San Bernardino are granted summary 16 | judgment in this case and the entire matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice, 17 | reasonable costs to be awarded to Defendants in an amount according to proof. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED: 9 oma Or 20 | Dated: September 17, 2019 21 United States District fudge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LLP | 1 gagio-3684-4420 v1 _2- __5:17-CV-00497-SI0-SP
1 R espectfully submitted, 2 Susan E. Coleman (SBN 171832) E-mail: [email protected] 3 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 5 Fax: 213.236.2700 6 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 7 MARK NOURSE, NORMAN PARENT, TOM BRADFORD, JOHN 8 NAVARRO, DANIEL GREGONIS, NORMAN SPERBER 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown