Bonilla v. California Highway Patrol

Opinion

2 4 5 GUILLERMO BONILLA, SANDRA ) 2:16-cv-01742 LEK 7 ) 8 Plaintiffs, ) 9 ) 10 vs. ) 11 ) 14 CALIFORNIA; OFFER MCKENZIE ) 15 AND SGT. PETERSON and DOES 1 ) 16 TO 50, ) 17 ) 18 Defendants. ) 19 ______________________________) 20 21 23 On April 22, 2021, the following orders were entered: 24 the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 25 (“Summary Judgment Order”); and the Order Granting Defendants’ 26 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Peterson for Failure to Serve 27 (“Dismissal Order”). [Dkt. nos. 93, 94.1] This Court granted 28 summary judgment in favor of Defendants California Highway 29 Patrol (“Highway Patrol”) and Muriel McKenzie (“McKenzie” and 30 collectively “Defendants”) as to all of Plaintiffs Guillermo 31 Bonilla and Sandra Amaya Bonilla’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims against 32 them. Summary Judgment Order, 2021 WL 1587520, at *10. The

1 The Summary Judgment Order is also available at 2021 WL 1587520, and the Dismissal Order is also available at 2021 WL 1584064. 1 Clerk’s Office was directed to terminate McKenzie as a party 2 immediately, but it was directed to wait thirty days to 3 terminate the Highway Patrol as a party. Id.

4 Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Highway Patrol 5 Sergeant Peterson (“Peterson”) were dismissed, without 6 prejudice, because of Plaintiffs’ failure to serve him. 7 Dismissal Order, 2021 WL 1584064, at *4. However, the dismissal 8 was subject to the Highway Patrol’s compliance with this Court’s 9 order “to file an affidavit or declaration, by someone with 10 personal knowledge of the relevant Highway Patrol records, 11 certifying that the address provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel on 12 June 20, 2017 was Peterson’s last known address at that time.” 13 Id. at *3-4. The deadline for the filing of the affidavit or 14 declaration was May 7, 2021. Id. at *4. 15 On May 6, 2021, the Highway Patrol filed the

16 Declaration of Katherine Nikolai Regarding Court’s April 22, 17 2021 Order [ECF 94] (“Nikolai Declaration”). [Dkt. no. 95.] 18 The Court FINDS that the Nikolai Declaration complies with the 19 requirements of the Dismissal Order. The Court therefore 20 confirms that all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Peterson are 21 dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to serve. The Clerk’s 22 Office is DIRECTED to terminate Peterson as a party immediately, 23 pursuant to the Dismissal Order and the instant Order. 1 Because the Highway Patrol has complied with the 2 requirements of the Dismissal Order, the Clerk’s Office is also 3 DIRECTED to terminate the Highway Patrol as a party immediately, 4 pursuant to the Summary Judgment Order. There being no 5 remaining claims in this case, the Clerk’s Office is further 6 DIRECTED to enter final judgment and close the case. 8 DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, May 13, 2021. 9 a EEO TI 10 ve “4 /s! Leslie E. Kobayashi Leslie E. Kobayashi 11 United States District Judge 12 ery ae we 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 GUILLERMO BONILLA, ET AL. VS. CALIFFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL; 22 2:16-CV-01742 LEK; ORDER TERMINATING PARTIES