Lerma v. Nogales, City of et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 30, 2014
*ORDER ADOPTING 115 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court, with the exception leave shall not be granted to amend the complaint. Defendants 96 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DEN IED in part accordingly. The summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiffs claims: that the City of Nogales had a custom or practice of tasering people indiscriminately in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (portion of Claim 1); under the ADA (Claim 2 ); of negligence (Claim 5) alleged against the EMTs only; of inadequate training (Claim 6); of vicarious liability (Claim 9) as to the federal claims only (the parties do not dispute that Claim 9 remains as to the state law claims); and for exemplary damages (Claim 10) except as to Defendant Pimienta. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiffs claims alleging: excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (portion of Claim 1); assault (Claim 3); battery (Claim 4); negligence (Claim 5) as to the police officers; negligent supervision (Claim 7); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Claim 8); and entitlement to exemplary damages as to Defendant Pimienta (Claim 10). A separate order shall issue setti ng this case for Pretrial Conference on the remaining issues and a date for the filing of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and motions in limine. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 9/30/14. (BAC) *Modified file date from 10/1/14 to 9/30/14; NEF regenerated on 10/1/2014 (SSU).
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?