Clark v. County of Tulare

Good Law
755 F. Supp. 2d 1075·2010 WL 4791683·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143183
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 21, 2010CV-F-09-2106 LJO JLTCalifornia12,963 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Neill, J.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

By notice filed on September 27, 2010, Defendants County of Tulare (“County”) and Bill Wittman (“Wittman”), individually and in his official capacity as Tulare County Sheriff, move for summary judgment or in the alternative, summary adjudication against plaintiff Michael Clark. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 18, 2010. Defendants filed a reply brief on October 27, 2010. The Court then asked for supplemental briefing on an evidentiary issue. Plaintiff filed his supplemental brief on November 1, 2010 and defendants filed their brief on November 12, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), this motion was submitted on the pleadings without oral argument, and the hearing was VACATED. Having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers, and the supplemental briefing, as well as the Court’s file, the Court issues the following order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action alleges claims related to defamation arising from a police investigation of a shooting. Plaintiff is employed as a police officer in the City of Woodlake. As part of his duties he is the range master for the police…

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.