Luckey

Luckey v. City of Porterville

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20241:23-cv-00551California4,777 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY LUCKEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00551-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

v. (Doc. 21) CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to racial discrimination while employed by the Porterville Police Department. (Doc. 20.) He asserts violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the United States and California Constitutions against the City of Porterville and Bruce Sokoloff (“Sokoloff”) (collectively “Defendants”). (Id.) Defendants move to dismiss all claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 21 at 1-2.) Plaintiff opposes dismissal, asserting the Second Amended Complaint states facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 32.) The matter was not calendared for hearing, and the Court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.