Filed: Jan. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2017
Summary: JUDGMENT ON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2016 [Docket No. 78]. The City of Los Angeles was dismissed on or about April 1, 2016. [Docket No. 86]. The Court heard oral argument on defendant Winn's motion on three occasions: May 16, 2016, May 19, 2016 and November 21, 2016. After full consideration of all the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the documents and pleadings submitted a
Summary: JUDGMENT ON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2016 [Docket No. 78]. The City of Los Angeles was dismissed on or about April 1, 2016. [Docket No. 86]. The Court heard oral argument on defendant Winn's motion on three occasions: May 16, 2016, May 19, 2016 and November 21, 2016. After full consideration of all the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the documents and pleadings submitted an..
More
JUDGMENT ON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.
Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2016 [Docket No. 78]. The City of Los Angeles was dismissed on or about April 1, 2016. [Docket No. 86]. The Court heard oral argument on defendant Winn's motion on three occasions: May 16, 2016, May 19, 2016 and November 21, 2016. After full consideration of all the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the documents and pleadings submitted and judicially noticed, the admissible evidence and separate statements offered by all parties, and multiple oral arguments of counsel for both parties, the Court finds that the moving party, defendant MARCELLA WINN, is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in accordance with the order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 217] and as follows:
1. Plaintiffs have failed as a matter of law to establish a Brady violation;
2. Plaintiffs have failed as a matter of law to establish a failure to investigate claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983;
3. Plaintiffs' claim for a violation of due process and familial association fails as a matter of law on the basis that plaintiff Susan Mellen has not established that any of her constitutional rights were violated; and
4. Defendant Winn enjoys qualified immunity on the Brady claim. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that defendant MARCELLA WINN is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law and plaintiffs shall take nothing by reason of their First Amended Complaint against defendant, the action is dismissed with prejudice and defendant WINN shall recover from plaintiffs her costs of action in the sum to be determined by the filing of a properly noticed Bill of Costs.
