Saxton
Saxton v. County of Sonoma
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHELLE SAXTON, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09499-SI
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR
9 v. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND TO
STAY
10 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 209 11 Defendants.
12 13 Trial is scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025. On June 17, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court held that 14 defendant Sheriff Essick is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, and granted 15 summary judgment in favor of defendants on the Estate of Amber Marcotte’s negligence claims 16 based on failure to file a tort claim. The Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment 17 on plaintiffs’ Monell claims and plaintiff M.J.’s negligence claims. 18 On July 8, 2025, defendants filed a motion seeking certification of two questions for 19 interlocutory appeal and to stay this case pending any interlocutory appeal. Defendants seek 20 …