Matilton

Matilton v. County of Humboldt

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 12, 20251:25-cv-01168California2,588 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION 7 ERIC MATILTON, et al., Case No. 25-cv-01168-RMI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Re: Dkt. No. 13 HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Now pending before the court is the motion (dkt. 13) of Defendant Christian Agricola, M.D. (“Dr. Agricola”) to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint (dkt. 1). Oral argument was heard in this matter on June 3, 2025. After consideration of the parties’ arguments and the relevant law, the court has determined that Dr. Agricola’s motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. I. Background “In assessing whether a plaintiff has stated a claim, we accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations, and construe all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Plaintiffs have alleged the following relevant facts in this matter: Plaintiffs are the children of Eric Matilton, Sr.…

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.