Filed: Oct. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA GRESSER JOHN F. WALTER , District Judge . The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA GRESSER came on regularly for hearing on October 7, 2019. Upon
Summary: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA GRESSER JOHN F. WALTER , District Judge . The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA GRESSER came on regularly for hearing on October 7, 2019. Upon r..
More
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA GRESSER
JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.
The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA GRESSER came on regularly for hearing on October 7, 2019. Upon review of the pleadings on file, the Court determined that the matter was appropriate for decision without oral argument, vacated the hearing date, and took the matter under submission. Dkt. 54.
After considering the moving, opposing, reply, and all associated papers filed by the parties, and for the reasons set forth more fully in its written order [Dkt. 55], this Court:
(a) Granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983); and
(b) Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's Second Claim for Malicious Prosecution;
(2) Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and
(3) Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action for Negligence.
Therefore, judgment is hereby entered in Defendants' favor on the above-referenced federal claim. Plaintiffs' above-referenced state claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
