Filed: Feb. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2018
Summary: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL AND CAPTAIN CHRIS MARKS ON PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ , District Judge . Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL and CAPTAIN CHRIS MARKS ["Defendants"] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c). [Dkt. 35] Upon consideration of the moving papers, all declarations and exhibits submitted therewith, and the entire c
Summary: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL AND CAPTAIN CHRIS MARKS ON PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ , District Judge . Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL and CAPTAIN CHRIS MARKS ["Defendants"] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c). [Dkt. 35] Upon consideration of the moving papers, all declarations and exhibits submitted therewith, and the entire ca..
More
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL AND CAPTAIN CHRIS MARKS ON PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ, District Judge.
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL and CAPTAIN CHRIS MARKS ["Defendants"] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c). [Dkt. 35]
Upon consideration of the moving papers, all declarations and exhibits submitted therewith, and the entire case file, the Court GRANTED the motion of Defendants in a written order dated October 20, 2017. [Dkt. 62] The Court found that Defendants did not violate Plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory, or common law rights as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims. The Order of the Court granting the motion is incorporated herein by reference.
By reason of said ORDER, Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, TANYA TATE-COOK, as successor-in-interest of the Estate of Troy Tate, decedent, and DAVID LEON TATE, SR., and SARAH L. TATE on Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs shall have and recover nothing by reason of each and all of the claims set forth in their Complaint against Defendants. Defendants shall recover costs in accordance with Local Rule 54(d).
