Ambrose

Ambrose v. Coffey

Good Law

696 F. Supp. 2d 1109·2009 WL 5206795·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119632

United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 24, 2009CIV. S-08-1664 LKK/GGHCalifornia5,205 words

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Plaintiffs bring suits arising out of an investigation of them, their arrests, and their criminal prosecution. Below, the court disposes of various motions to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Posture

On July 18, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Ambrose (“Ambrose”) filed a complaint against Gary Coffey (“Coffey”), James C. Weydert (“Weydert”), William Reynolds (“Reynolds”), Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Zenith Insurance Company (“Zenith”), and the County of San Joaquin (“County”). On August 20, 2008, Travelers and Reynolds moved to dismiss all causes of action pled against them, and on August 28, 2008, the County, Coffey, and Weydert also moved to dismiss all claims against them. Ambrose voluntarily dismissed Zenith on September 4, 2008. On November 13, 2008, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss Ambrose’s complaint in part, and granted Ambrose leave to amend his complaint. Ambrose filed an amended complaint on September 18, 2009.

On May 28, 2009, plaintiffs Richard Sausedo (“Sausedo”) and Pedram Vaezi (‘Vaezi”) filed a complaint against Travelers, Reynolds, County, Weydert, and Coffey, Sausedo v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Co.,…

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.