Sergio Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles et al
| Sergio Hernandez |
| City of Los Angeles, LAPD Officer Alfredo Ibanez, LAPD Officer arturo Avila, LAPD Officer Mark Horta, LAPD Officer Robert Rand, LAPD Officer Drew Gontram, LAPD Officer Guillermo Espinoza, LAPD Officer Rene Gonzalez and Unknown LAPD Officers |
| 2:2009cv06522 |
| September 9, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Jacqueline Chooljian |
| George H King |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 18, 2011. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 47 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS - ORDER by Clerk of Court by Irene Ramirez, Relief Courtroom Deputy. The document is accepted as filed. RE: Notice of Filing of Proposed Joint Stipulation #44 (lw) |
Filing 46
ORDER by Judge George H. King: Request to dismiss is granted. The lawsuit in its entirety is dismissed with prejudice. All parties will bear their own fees and costs associated with the litigation of this matter. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ir)
|
| Filing 45 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Filing of [Proposed] Joint Stipulation #44 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Document should be filed as a Stipulation to Dismiss Party using event Stipulations-Dismiss Party. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) |
| Filing 44 NOTICE of Filling of [Proposed] Joint Stipulation of dismissal of Defendants filed by defendants arturo Avila, City of Los Angeles, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Rene Gonzalez, Mark Horta, Alfredo Ibanez, Robert Rand. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Joint Stipulation of Dismissl of Defendants, #2 Proposed Order granting the dismissal of defendants)(Mills, Denise) |
|
Filing 43
ORDER Re Joint #42 Ex Parte Application and Stipulation to Continue the Filing Deadline for Motions for Summary Judgment. The parties have stipulated to the continuance and requested that the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment be continued from January 21, 2011 to February 18, 2011. (mg)
|
| Filing 42 Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue filing deadline for Motions for Summary Judgment from January 21, 2011 to February 18, 2011 Re: Order #36 filed by Defendants arturo Avila, City of Los Angeles, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Rene Gonzalez, Mark Horta, Alfredo Ibanez, Robert Rand. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order RE: JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE FILING DEADLINE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)(Mills, Denise) |
|
Filing 41
ORDER RE: JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE COMPLETION DATE by Judge George H. King, re Stipulation to Continue, #40 . The deadline to conduct a settlement conference in the above-entitled mater is hereby vacated. The deadline to participate in a settlement conference will be scheduled at a later date after this Court has decided defendants' motion for summary judgment. (bp)
|
| Filing 40 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Settlement Conference Completion Date from December 10, 2010 to a date after Court rules upon defts MSJ filed by defendants arturo Avila, City of Los Angeles, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Rene Gonzalez, Mark Horta, Alfredo Ibanez, Robert Rand. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Mills, Denise) |
| Filing 39 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS #38 by Clerk of Court that document is stricken. No attached order submitted. Document to re-filed by no later than January 6, 2011. RE: Joint Ex Parte Application #37 . (bm) |
| Filing 38 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Ex Parte Application #37 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. The correct event is: Ex Parte Applications-Continue. Other error(s) with document(s): Docket entry text does not match caption of attached document. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) |
| Filing 37 Joint STIPULATION to Continue SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE COMPLETION DATE from December 10, 2010 to to a date in the future after the Court has ruled upon the defendants' motion. filed by defendants arturo Avila, City of Los Angeles, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Rene Gonzalez, Mark Horta, Alfredo Ibanez, Robert Rand.(Mills, Denise) ***DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 1/4/11, DOCUMENT #39 .*** Modified on 1/5/2011 (bm). |
|
Filing 36
ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (See document for further details) by Judge George H. King. (ir)
|
|
Filing 35
MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER: (1) VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; AND (2) ENTERING SCHEDULING DATES This matter is before us for scheduling conference on Monday, May 24, 2010. We have considered the parties joint report, and determine that an in-person scheduling conference is unnecessary. Accordingly, the May 24, 2010 scheduling conference is hereby VACATED and TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. We now enter the following scheduling order: 1. Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses and/or parties shall be lodged/filed by no later than June 21, 2010, failing which it shall be deemed that partys waiver of any such amendments in this action. 2. All discovery (both fact and expert) shall be COMPLETED by no later than November 26, 2010. Completion means that any discovery that is not received in hand by the requesting party by thecompletion date will be denied. 3. The parties shall designate their expert witnesses, and make the required disclosures, by no later than October 1, 2010, and do likewise for any rebuttal expert witnesses by no later than October 22, 2010. 4. The parties shall comply with Local Rule 16-15 by no later than December 10, 2010. The parties elect to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge for settlement conference. We approve this election. The parties shall ensure that a settlement conference is set before Judge Chooljian before the deadline set forth above. If the case settles, counsel shall notify the court clerk forthwith. If the case does not settle, counsel shall file a joint status report with the court within 48 hours of termination of settlement discussions.5. Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed in compliance with the Local Rules, as well as our Order Re: Summary Judgment Motions issued concurrently herewith, by no later than January 21, 2011, and noticed for hearing thereafter regularly under the Local Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will bedenied. 6. The court will set pre-trial conference and trial dates, if necessary, after resolution of the summary judgment motion IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir)
|
| Filing 34 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS #32 by Clerk of Court that the document is accepted as filed RE: Joint Report of Parties Meeting #31 . (bm) |
| Filing 33 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King: On the Court's own motion, the above matter set for scheduling conference on May 24, 2010, is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The hearing dat is VACATED. The Court will issue its scheduling conference order. (bm) |
| Filing 32 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Report of Counsel #31 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Pretrial and Trial Documents-Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) |
| Filing 31 JOINT REPORT of MEETING OF COUNSEL PER RULE 26F filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez. (Copeland, Richard) |
|
Filing 30
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge George H. King: Counsel shall read this order carefully and shall have available the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 in complying with this Order. THIS MATTER IS SET FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON: MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010 AT 1:30 P.M., at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 E. Temple Street, Suite 650, Los Angeles, California. Counsel primarily responsible for the conduct of this litigation and who has the authority to enter into stipulations and to make admissions regarding all matters that the participants may reasonably anticipate may be discussed, or the party if unrepresented,SHALL ATTEND IN PERSON. By no later than APRIL 23, 2010, counsel for all appearing parties and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall meet, in person, and discuss the matters setforth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f); By no later than MAY 10, 2010, counsel for all appearing parties and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall file a joint REPORT OF PARTIES PLANNING MEETING (See document for further details) (ir)
|
| Filing 29 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants arturo Avila, City of Los Angeles, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Rene Gonzalez, Mark Horta, Alfredo Ibanez, Robert Rand, (Johnson, Denise) |
| Filing 28 AMENDED ANSWER to Amended Complaint, #27 filed by defendants Mark Horta, City of Los Angeles, Robert Rand, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Alfredo Ibanez, Rene Gonzalez, arturo Avila. (Johnson, Denise) |
| Filing 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants arturo Avila, City of Los Angeles, Guillermo Espinoza, Drew Gontram, Rene Gonzalez, Mark Horta, Alfredo Ibanez, Robert Rand, Several as of yet unknown LAPD Officers amending Complaint - (Discovery) #1 with Jury Demand filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez (ir) |
|
Filing 26
ORDER by Judge George H. King, having read and considered the parties' Stipulation allowing Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint #25 . Plaintiff is granted leave to file a first amended complaint; The proposed first amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to the parties stipulation is deemed to be the first amended complaint in this matter, and is deemed filed as fo the date of this Order; and Defendants shall have ten days from the date of the Order to file their Answers to the Complaint. (ir)
|
| Filing 25 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to Allow Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Copeland, Richard) |
|
Filing 24
ORDER by Judge George H. King,regarding parties having Stipulated to Plaintiff dismissing each malicious prosecution claim brought under state law, and to give Defendants until 3/4/10 within which to file an answer to the First Amended complaint #23 . (ir)
|
| Filing 23 Joint STIPULATION to Exclude any malicious prosecution claim being brought under state law, FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Rene Gonzalez answer now due 3/4/2010; City of Los Angeles answer now due 3/4/2010; Alfredo Ibanez answer now due 3/4/2010; arturo Avila answer now due 3/4/2010; Mark Horta answer now due 3/4/2010; Robert Rand answer now due 3/4/2010; Drew Gontram answer now due 3/4/2010; Guillermo Espinoza answer now due 3/4/2010, filed by Defendants Rene Gonzalez; City of Los Angeles; Alfredo Ibanez; arturo Avila; Mark Horta; Robert Rand; Drew Gontram; Guillermo Espinoza. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kades, Kelly) |
|
Filing 22
MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order re: Defendants Motion to Dismiss #12 ; The Motion is DENIED in full with respect to Claim 4 for malicious prosecution and false arrest. With respect to Claim 5 for negligence, the Motion is GRANTED in part. The part of the negligence claim pertaining to the Officer Defendants use of force (Id. 48) is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, since the time to submit an application to file a late claim has already expired. Cal. Govt Code 911.4. California Government Code 911.4(b) requires that any application to present a late claim be filed within one year of the claims accrual. See Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara, et al., 187 Cal. App. 3d 480, 488 (1986) (When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6.) (citations omitted). This part of the negligence claim accrued on July 21, 2008, the date of arrest, and therefore, the deadline for a late application passed one year later. At this time, Plaintiff cannot file an application under Section 911.4, and therefore, granting leave to amend would be futile. Klamath-Lake Pharm. Assn v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) ([F]utile amendments should not be permitted.). With respect to the rest of the allegations in Claim 5, the Motion is DENIED. All defendants SHALL answer the Complaint within fourteen (14) days hereof IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir)
|
|
Filing 21
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King taking under submission #12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: On the court's own motion, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss #12 , noticed for hearing on February 1, 2010, is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated. (bm)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER regarding Case Management (See document for further details) by Judge George H. King. (ir)
|
| Filing 19 REPLY IN SUPPORT MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Relief 12(b)(6) MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Relief 12(b)(6) #12 Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Rene Gonzalez, City of Los Angeles, Alfredo Ibanez, arturo Avila, Mark Horta, Robert Rand, Drew Gontram, Guillermo Espinoza. (Kades, Kelly) |
|
Filing 18
MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER; PARTIES ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned case has been reassigned to the calendar of the Hon. George H. King, U.S. District Judge, for all further proceedings. On all documents subsequently filed in this case, please substitute the initials GHK after the case number in place of the initials of the prior judge, so that the case number will read CV 09-6522 GHK (JCx). This is very important because documents are routed to the assigned judges by means of the initials. Parties are further notified that Judge King is located Courtroom 650 in the Roybal Federal Building, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and his Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Beatrice Herrera, can be reached at (213) 894-6907.Parties are further notified that Defendants Motion to Dismiss noticed for hearing on January 26, 2010 #12 is vacated and reset on February 1, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss shall remain as previously noticed IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir)
|
| Filing 17 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER of Deficiencies in Electronically filed documents: The document is accepted as filed RE: Response in Opposition to Motion #14 (ir) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error was found: Incorrect Judge's initials indicated on caption of document. Judge's initials are GHK (JCx). RE: Response in Opposition to Motion, #14 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (ir) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of MJPilot case from Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams to Judge George H. King for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judges CV 09-06522 GHK (JCx). (rn) |
| Filing 14 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Relief 12(b)(6) MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Relief 12(b)(6) #12 filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez. (Copeland, Richard) |
| Filing 13 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Defendants Rene Gonzalez, City of Los Angeles, Alfredo Ibanez, arturo Avila, Mark Horta, Robert Rand, Drew Gontram, Guillermo Espinoza. (Kades, Kelly) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Relief 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants Rene Gonzalez, City of Los Angeles, Alfredo Ibanez, arturo Avila, Mark Horta, Robert Rand, Drew Gontram, Guillermo Espinoza. Motion set for hearing on 1/26/2010 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (Kades, Kelly) |
| Filing 11 REMINDER NOTICE re Magistrate Judge Civil Consent Pilot Project. (ch) |
| Filing 10 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles answer now due 11/30/2009, filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez.(Copeland, Richard) |
| Filing 9 PDF DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO DOCKET RE LOCAL RULE 3-2. The following PDF Documents were attached to the Court docket on 9/30/09: Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Summons, Civil Cover Sheet, Certificate of Interested Parties. (ds) |
| Filing 8 PDF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED RE LOCAL RULE 3-2. The following PDF Documents were received by the Court on 9/30/09: Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Summons, Civil Cover Sheet, Certificate of Interested Parties. (ds) |
| Filing 7 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 3-2 held before Judge Audrey B. Collins: PLAINTIFF is reminded that all manually filed civil initiating documents shall be e-mailed to the Court within 24 hours of their filing with the Court in PDF format only. PLAINTIFF is hereby ordered to e-mail PDF copies of the Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Summons, Civil Cover Sheet, Certificate of Interested Parties to the Civil Intake e-mail address for the appropriate Court Division within 24 hours of the issuance of this order. Failure to do so will result in a hearing before this Court and imposition of sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 83-7(a). (ds) |
| Filing 6 CLERKS E-MAIL RE LOCAL RULE 3-2 TO COUNSEL on 9/15/09 addressed to fperez@mpforlaw.com. COURT REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2, you are required to e-mail, within 24 hours of filing, a Filed stamped copy of your complaint and other civil case initiating documents, in PDF format to the Court. To date, we have not received the PDF images of your filing. Please do so within 24 hours or this matter will be referred to the Chief Judge for further proceedings. (ds) |
|
Filing 5
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams under the Civil Consent Pilot Project. The parties are reminded to review the time requirements for consent set forth in the Notice to Counsel that was issued at the time of the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff is instructed to forthwith serve a copy of this Order on all parties that have already been served with the summons and complaint, or to serve all parties with a copy of this Order at the time of service of the summons and complaint. (ch)
|
|
Filing 4
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams under the Civil Consent Pilot Project. The parties are reminded to review the time requirements for consent set forth in the Notice to Counsel that was issued at the time of the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff is instructed to forthwith serve a copy of this Order on all parties that have already been served with the summons and complaint, or to serve all parties with a copy of this Order at the time of service of the summons and complaint.#(ch)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Civil Consent Pilot Project. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (et) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez. (et) (ds). |
| 20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery) #1 as to Defendants Rene Gonzalez, Unknown LAPD Officers, City of Los Angeles, Alfredo Ibanez, arturo Avila, Mark Horta, Robert Rand, Drew Gontram, Guillermo Espinoza. (et) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Rene Gonzalez, Unknown LAPD Officers, City of Los Angeles, Alfredo Ibanez, arturo Avila, Mark Horta, Robert Rand, Drew Gontram, Guillermo Espinoza. (Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Sergio Hernandez. (et) (ds). |
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
