Belinda C. Muhammad v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Opinion

Case 2:19-cv-07970-JAK-PVC Document 102 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:970

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BELINDA C. MUHAMMAD, Case No. CV 19-7970 JAK (PVC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 BRETANNIYIA JENKINS, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Fourth Amended 18 Complaint, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 19 Adjudication, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the 20 United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Objections. After having made a de novo 21 determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections 22 were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the 23 Magistrate Judge. 24 25 In her Objections, Plaintiff maintains that proper application of the sham affidavit 26 rule requires that her Motion for Summary Adjudication be granted on the issue of 27 Defendant’s liability. However, as noted in the Report and Recommendation, not all of 28 the statements challenged by Plaintiff can properly be construed to even fall within the Case 2:19-cv-07970-JAK-PVC Document 102 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:971

1 potential ambit of the sham affidavit rule. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit admonishes that 2 the sham affidavit rule, which is discretionary, be applied with caution, lest it function as a 3 de facto credibility finding. Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). The 4 Court finds that in the unique circumstances of this case, where each side is using her 5 respective version of the facts both as a sword to obtain summary judgment/adjudication 6 and as a shield to create a triable issue of fact to defeat the other side’s motion, strict 7 application of the sham affidavit rule would function as a credibility finding, which is an 8 improper ground for granting summary judgment. Id. Accordingly, the Court exercises 9 its discretion not to strike Defendant’s declarations, and Plaintiff’s Objections are 10 OVERRULED. 11 12 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 13 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is 15 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent 16 that it seeks an order striking Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1 (failure to state a 17 claim), 10 (immunity under state law), 11 (same), 12 (same), 13 (same) and 19 (failure to 18 state a claim), which are hereby STRICKEN. The Motion is DENIED to the extent that it 19 seeks dismissal of Defendant’s remaining Affirmative Defenses, without prejudice to 20 filing a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) upon a proper 21 showing of prejudice. The Motion is also DENIED to the extent that it seeks summary 22 adjudication of Defendant’s purported liability. 23 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s First 25 Amendment claim as alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 26 27 28

2 Case 2:19-cv-07970-JAK-PVC Document 102 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:972

1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this Order on Plaintiff at her 2 current address of record and on counsel for Defendant. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: February 7, 2022 7 JOHN A. KRONSTADT 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28