welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. California
  4. 2019
  5. A.J.C. v. City of Bakersfield, 1:18-cv-00307 JLT. (2019)

A.J.C. v. City of Bakersfield, 1:18-cv-00307 JLT. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190925998 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . In these actions, the plaintiffs bring similar claims and they present similar questions of fact and law. In the Raymond matter, Mr. James Raymond, the father of the decedent Augustus Crawford, claims Crawford was unlawfully killed by a Bakersfield Police Officer. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Doc. 1) Ingrid Crawford Smith, Crawford's mother, and A.C., by and through guardia
More

ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED

In these actions, the plaintiffs bring similar claims and they present similar questions of fact and law. In the Raymond matter, Mr. James Raymond, the father of the decedent Augustus Crawford, claims Crawford was unlawfully killed by a Bakersfield Police Officer. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Doc. 1)

Ingrid Crawford Smith, Crawford's mother, and A.C., by and through guardian ad litem Tyshika Williams, initiated another action by filing a complaint in November 2018. These plaintiffs are represented by the same attorney, Mr. George Mgdesyan, as in instant matter.1 In that action, the plaintiffs named the chief of police and the City of Bakersfield in addition to Warren Martin, who was named in Raymond's lawsuit. The Court consolidated these actions on March 14, 2019.

In this latest action, the plaintiff names the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Police Department2 and makes the same, basic claims as in the other two cases. Therefore, the Court

ORDERS:

1. No later than October 4, 2019, the parties in the consolidated case and in this current action SHALL show cause in writing why the actions should not be consolidated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court notes that Mr. Mgdesyan failed to file a notice of related cases. L.R. 123(b)
2. The Court observes that the plaintiff has made no showing that the Bakersfield Police Department is a separate legal entity from the City of Bakersfield. Courts have repeatedly held that a department of a municipality is not amenable to suit. United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir. 2005); Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 791 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Although municipalities, such as cities and counties, are amenable to suit ... sub-departments or bureaus of municipalities, such as the police departments, are not generally considered `persons' within the meaning of § 1983"); see also Gonzales v. City of Clovis, 2013 WL 394522 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2013) (holding that the Clovis Police Department is not a "person" for purposes of Section 1983); Wade v. Fresno Police Dep't, 2010 WL 2353525 at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010). The Court expects the plaintiff has legal authority for the proposition that the plaintiff may persist in the lawsuit against the Bakersfield Police Department or the plaintiff will immediately seek to dismiss this "party" or risk being found to be in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
1:18-cv-00307 JLT. 1:19-cv-01302 DAD JLT
Counsels
  • George Gevork Mgdesyan
  • Heather Sharon Cohen
  • Michael G. Marderosian
  • Virginia Anne Gennaro
  • Kathleen Rivera
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer