1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 SHERRIE MILLER: T.M.; a minor, by ) Case No:19-9068-JFW(KESx) and though her Guardian ad Litem, ) 11 Sherrie Miller, ) JUDGMENT AND ) CERTIFICATION OF 12 Plaintiffs, ) APPEALABILITY PURSUANT ) TO FRCP 54(b) 13 vs. ) ) 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public ) entity, DEPUTY HURTADO, a public ) 15 employee; VIVINT, INC., a corporation. ) ) 16 Defendants. )

17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the orders of this Court entered July 27, 18 2020 (Dkt. 49, 50), granting summary judgment in favor of the County of Los 19 Angeles and Deputy Jose Hurtado (hereinafter “County Defendants”) as to all 20 federal claims is final, and that no just reason for delay. This Order is based on the 21 following: 22 1. The operative pleading in the action was the Complaint for Damages 23 (Dkt. 2-1), which was filed by the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles County Superior 24 Court. The case was removed to this Court on October 22, 2019 by the County 25 Defendants. 26 2. The Complaint for Damages named three defendants: the County of 27 Los Angeles, Deputy (Jose) Hurtado and Vivint, Inc. 28 1 3. The Complaint for Damages asserted the following claims for relief: 2 ||(1) “Deprivation of rights under color of state law — 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988” 3 || (asserted against the County Defendants); (2) negligence (asserted against the 4 County Defendants); (3) false imprisonment (asserted against the County 5 || Defendants); and, (4) negligence (asserted against Vivint, Inc.). 6 4. On June 22, 2020, the County Defendants filed a Motion for 7 ||Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 39). 8 || The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion (Dkt. 44). The County Defendants 9 || filed a reply (Dkt. 45). 10 5. On July 27, 2020, this Court entered two Orders granting and 11 || conclusively resolving the County Defendants’ motion as to all claims over which 12 || this Court had original jurisdiction (1.e., the claim for “Deprivation of rights under 13 ||color of state law —

, 1988”), declined to exercise supplemental 14 jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and remanded the case to the Los 15 || Angeles County Superior Court (Dkt. 49, 50). 16 6. As noted in this Court’s minute order, “although Plaintiffs’ state and 17 || federal law claims are based on similar facts and theories, the state law claims 18 || cannot be easily or summarily disposed of based on the Court’s ruling on the 19 || federal claims, especially given that the state law claims have unique elements and 20 || given that non-moving defendant, Vivint Inc., is a private entity.” Moreover, 21 || because this Court’s ruling on the County Defendants’ summary judgment motion 22 ||may have collateral estoppel effect on the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims 23 || against the County Defendants, see Hernandez v. City of Pomona,

, 24 || 516-17 (2009), there is further justification for finality. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || DATED: August 31, 2020 Lak ~ LEE 28 H morable John F. Walter Injted States District Judge