Carol L. Gonzales v. City of Los Angeles

C.D. California

Carol L. Gonzales v. City of Los Angeles

DecidedDecember 13, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-03519

StatusUnknown

This text of Carol L. Gonzales v. City of Los Angeles (Carol L. Gonzales v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carol L. Gonzales v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROL L. GONZALES, Case No. 2:20-CV-03519-JGB (MAA)

12 Plaintiff,

13 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. 14 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 15 JUDGE Defendants. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 19 Complaint, the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of 20 the United States Magistrate Judge. The time for filing objections has expired and 21 no objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and 22 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 23 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that: 24 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is 25 ACCEPTED; 26 2. Defendant Amadou Kante’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended 27 Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as 28 follows: 1 a. DENIED on the issue of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 2 (1994), and Susag v. City of Lake Forest, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1401 3 (2002), without prejudice to any party raising this issue again on 4 summary judgment; 5 b. On the issue of Section 47(b) immunity: (1) DENIED as to 6 assault and battery; (11) GRANTED as to defamation, invasion 7 of privacy, discrimination, and intentional infliction of 8 emotional distress; and (111) GRANTED as to harassment, 9 negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, to the 10 extent these claims are based upon Defendant Kante’s 11 statements to the police 12 3. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 13 PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND with respect to the 14 following claims against Defendant Kante: 15 a. defamation, invasion of privacy, discrimination, and intentional 16 infliction of emotional distress; and 17 b. harassment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and 18 negligence, to the extent these claims are based upon Defendant 19 Kante’s statements to the police. 20 4. Defendant Kante shall file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint 21 no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of this Order. 22 23 4 Y ( 24 || DATED: December 13, 2021 4 aw □ JESUS G. BERNAL 25 UNI'NAD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROL L. GONZALES, Case No. 2:20-CV-03519-JGB (MAA)

12 Plaintiff,

13 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. 14 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 15 JUDGE Defendants. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 19 Complaint, the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of 20 the United States Magistrate Judge. The time for filing objections has expired and 21 no objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and 22 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 23 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that: 24 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is 25 ACCEPTED; 26 2. Defendant Amadou Kante’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended 27 Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as 28 follows: 1 a. DENIED on the issue of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 2 (1994), and Susag v. City of Lake Forest, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1401 3 (2002), without prejudice to any party raising this issue again on 4 summary judgment; 5 b. On the issue of Section 47(b) immunity: (1) DENIED as to 6 assault and battery; (11) GRANTED as to defamation, invasion 7 of privacy, discrimination, and intentional infliction of 8 emotional distress; and (111) GRANTED as to harassment, 9 negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, to the 10 extent these claims are based upon Defendant Kante’s 11 statements to the police 12 3. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 13 PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND with respect to the 14 following claims against Defendant Kante: 15 a. defamation, invasion of privacy, discrimination, and intentional 16 infliction of emotional distress; and 17 b. harassment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and 18 negligence, to the extent these claims are based upon Defendant 19 Kante’s statements to the police. 20 4. Defendant Kante shall file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint 21 no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of this Order. 22 23 4 Y ( 24 || DATED: December 13, 2021 4 aw □ JESUS G. BERNAL 25 UNI'NAD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carol L. Gonzales v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carol-l-gonzales-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack