Garland E. Burrell Jr.

“Since Defendants failed to file a statement of undisputed facts with their motion for summary judgment as prescribed by Local Rule 260(a), Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 16) is GRANTED with respect to all claims, EXCEPT for plaintiff’s claim against defendants Kossow and Short under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment under a theory of unlawful detention; ... Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Kossow and Short under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment under theories of unlawful search and conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Plaintiff’s remaining claims against defendants Kossow and Short are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff Department, Matt Morgan, and Scott Jones are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the action.”

“Defendant United States of America filed a motion on July 17, 2009, in which it moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for partial summary judgment of that claim. The dismissal portion of the motion is over-broad and therefore denied.”

“Further, it is unclear what partial summary judgment is sought; therefore, that portion of the motion is also denied.”

“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed August 4, 2006, is granted on plaintiff’s Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, and denied on plaintiff’s First, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action; summary judgment is granted on behalf of Sheriff Lou Blanas.”

“Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, filed August 24, 2006, is denied.”

“For the reasons stated above, each Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claim is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s remaining state claim is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”

“For the reasons stated above, Defendant Girard’s 12(b)(6) dismissal motion is granted, his Rule 12(f) motion to strike is denied as moot and his anti-SLAPP motion to strike is granted.”

“The School District Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and denied in part.”

“For the stated reasons, each Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED.”

“Defendant’s July 18, 2011 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 17), in which Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim alleged under the Federal Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) is granted and this claim is dismissed with prejudice.”

“Therefore, Defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED. Since all claims against Defendants are dismissed, Defendants’ 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days from the date on which this order is filed to file a Third Amended Complaint addressing the issues raised in this order.”

“Respondent’s December 27, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted; and ... This action is dismissed with prejudice because the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations.”

“For the stated reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and DENIED in part.”

“For the stated reasons, Counterdefendants’ dismissal motion is granted in part and denied in part, and their anti-SLAPP motion is denied. The precise rulings are as follows: 1. M.A.F. and J.A.’s request to dismiss Counterclaimants’ malicious prosecution claim is granted. 2. Counterdefendants’ request to dismiss Counterclaimants’ libel claim is denied. 3. Counterdefendants’ request to dismiss Counterclaimants’ slander claim is granted, except as to the statements in the Examiner.com article, to which this request is granted as to J.A. but denied as to M.A.F. and SNAFU.”