Bonilla v. California Highway Patrol

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GUILLERMO BONILLA, SANDRA ) 2:16-cv-01742 LEK AMAYA BONILLA, ) )

Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) )

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AN )

AGENEY OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA; OFFER MCKENZIE )

AND SGT. PETERSON and DOES 1 )

TO 50, ) )

Defendants. ) ______________________________)

ORDER TERMINATING PARTIES On April 22, 2021, the following orders were entered: the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment Order”); and the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Peterson for Failure to Serve (“Dismissal Order”). [Dkt. nos. 93, 94.1] This Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants California Highway Patrol (“Highway Patrol”) and Muriel McKenzie (“McKenzie” and collectively “Defendants”) as to all of Plaintiffs Guillermo Bonilla and Sandra Amaya Bonilla’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims against them. Summary Judgment Order, 2021 WL 1587520, at *10. The The Summary Judgment Order is also available at 2021 WL 1587520, and the Dismissal Order is also available at 2021 WL 1584064.

Clerk’s Office was directed to terminate McKenzie as a party immediately, but it was directed to wait thirty days to terminate the Highway Patrol as a party. Id. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Highway Patrol Sergeant Peterson (“Peterson”) were dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiffs’ failure to serve him.

Dismissal Order, 2021 WL 1584064, at *4. However, the dismissal was subject to the Highway Patrol’s compliance with this Court’s order “to file an affidavit or declaration, by someone with personal knowledge of the relevant Highway Patrol records, certifying that the address provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel on June 20, 2017 was Peterson’s last known address at that time.” Id. at *3-4. The deadline for the filing of the affidavit or declaration was May 7, 2021. Id. at *4.

On May 6, 2021, the Highway Patrol filed the Declaration of Katherine Nikolai Regarding Court’s April 22, 2021 Order [ECF 94] (“Nikolai Declaration”). [Dkt. no. 95.] The Court FINDS that the Nikolai Declaration complies with the requirements of the Dismissal Order. The Court therefore confirms that all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Peterson are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to serve. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to terminate Peterson as a party immediately, pursuant to the Dismissal Order and the instant Order.

Because the Highway Patrol has complied with the requirements of the Dismissal Order, the Clerk’s Office is also DIRECTED to terminate the Highway Patrol as a party immediately, pursuant to the Summary Judgment Order. There being no remaining claims in this case, the Clerk’s Office is further DIRECTED to enter final judgment and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, May 13, 2021. a EEO TI ve “4 /s! Leslie E. Kobayashi Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge ery ae we

GUILLERMO BONILLA, ET AL. VS. CALIFFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL; 2:16-CV-01742 LEK; ORDER TERMINATING PARTIES