Rosa

Rosa v. CITY OF SEASIDE

Good Law
675 F. Supp. 2d 1006·2009 WL 5065648·56 A.L.R. 6th 801·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117933
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 18, 2009Case C 05-03577 JF; Docket 211California3,786 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fogel, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Evelyn and Robert Rosa (“Plaintiffs”) brought the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , California Civil Code § 52.1 et seq., and California tort law on behalf of themselves and their deceased son, Michael Rosa. All claims have been dismissed except for Plaintiffs’ tort claims against Defendant TASER International, Inc. (“TASER”). Plaintiffs allege that a TASER-manufactured Electronic Control Device (“ECD”) was a substantial contributing factor in their son’s death and that TASER either is strictly liable for or was negligent in failing to warn of the danger posed by its product. Discovery is complete, and the matter is set for trial. TASER moves for summary judgment as to the claims asserted against it. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. August 29, 2004

Michael Rosa (“Rosa”) lived with Plaintiffs, his parents, in Del Ray Oaks, California. At approximately 11:00 P.M. on August 29, 2004, one of Plaintiffs’ neighbors called the police to report a disturbance in the area. The neighbor told the police dispatcher that “somebody [was] walking up…

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.