Goehring

Goehring v. Wright

Good Law
858 F. Supp. 989·94 Daily Journal DAR 10997·1994 WL 385385·1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12483
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 1994Civ. C 93-20237 EAICalifornia8,572 words

Opinion

Opinion

Infante, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS EDDY GENE WRIGHT AND RUDY ROBLEDO; AND REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

Defendants Eddy Gene Wright, Rudy Rob-ledo and the County of Santa Clara (the “County”) have each moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted in plaintiff Edwin Carl Goehring’s Third Amended Complaint. Having reviewed the motion papers filed by all parties and considered the oral arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing for the reasons set forth below, the County’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the motions of Wright and Robledo for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part, and the remaining state law claims are remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

I. Procedural Background

This lawsuit alleging, inter alia, federal civil rights law violations arises out of plaintiffs arrest, prosecution, and acquittal in state court for an alleged “hate crime”. In June 1991, plaintiff filed this civil lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court, asserting purely state common law tort claims against several individuals, including Wright and Robledo.…

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.