Flores

Flores v. Von Kleist

Good Law
739 F. Supp. 2d 1236·2010 WL 3582540·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95929
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20102:08-cv-02499California9,325 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burrell, J.

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Jack Martin, Mark Hendry, Leigh McDaniels, Ben Kraemer and Vangie Porras (collectively, the “School Board Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2010, on Plaintiffs federal and state claims alleged in his second amended complaint. (Docket No. 29.) Defendant Chris Von Kleist also filed a motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2010. (Docket No. 27.) Each Defendant’s motion asserts the qualified immunity defense to certain of Plaintiffs federal claims. Plaintiff filed an opposition to each motion. Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendant Von Kleist, the Superintendent of the Orland Unified School District (the “School District”), and members of the School District’s Board of Trustees, related to the termination of his employment as a school principal and classroom teacher. Argument on Defendants’ summary judgment motions was heard on June 21, 2010.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91…

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.