Macario Garcia v. County of Los Angeles et al
| Macario Garcia |
| Deputy Marcopolo Chavez, County of Los Angeles, Does, Deputy Fajardo, Deputy Gonzalez, Deputy Ledesma, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Deputy Rodriguez and Deputy Micah Weinreb |
| 2:2014cv07634 |
| October 1, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L. Abrams |
| Andre Birotte |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
127
JUDGMENT IMPOSING TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF MACARIO GARCIA by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants' Second Notice of Motion and Motion for Monetary and Terminating Sanctio ns against Plaintiff Macario Garcia 92 is GRANTED in its entirety. Terminating Sanctions are imposed and Plaintiff Macario Garcia's Action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and awarded to Defendants as reques ted in the amount of $3,900.00 for the reasonable costs of bringing the motion (Antonio K. Kizzie, Esq. reasonable hourly rate of $425.00/hour x 6 hours totaling $2,550.00) and Dr. Stan Katz's invoice due to Plaintiff's non-a ppearance at Plaintiff's IME ($1,350.00) to be paid by Plaintiff within 30 days of this Order. Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment 93 is DENIED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall recover nothing by reason of the complaint, and that Defendants shall recover costs from Plaintiff MACARIO GARCIA pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) per cost bill. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)
|
|
Filing
20
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): Order DENYING in Part and GRANTING in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and DENYING as Moot Defendants' Motion to Strike by Judge Andre Birotte, Jr: In light of the Ninth Circuits 2014 decision in Albino, the Court cannot find thatPlaintiff failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies at this point in thelitigation, and Defendants Motion to Dismiss on the issue of exhaustion is DENIED.However, for the reasons indicated above, the Court finds that Pla intiff has failed to stateclaims with respect to his three substantive causes of action. Accordingly: Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; The Los Angeles Sheriffs Department is DISMISSED as a party withprejudice.Plaintiffs complain t is DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 12) is denied as MOOT.Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.If he chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff should keep in mind the analysesprovided above. 12 , 13 (bp)
|
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.
