Whitaker

Whitaker v. Garcetti

Good Law
291 F. Supp. 2d 1132·2003 WL 22722037·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20805
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 17, 2003CV 99-8196WJR(CWX)California13,008 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rea, J.

OPINION AND ORDER

Both Defendants and Plaintiffs have brought motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The matter came on for hearing before the Court, the Honorable William J. Rea, Judge, presiding, on October 1, 2003. Having considered the motions, the papers filed in support thereof and in opposition thereto, the oral argument of counsel, and the file in the case, the Court now makes the following decision.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiffs Jack Whitaker, Ramon Portillo, Avelino Avalos, Eduardo Martinez, Virgina Delgado, Ricardo Carrizoza, Lauro Rocha Gaxiola and Antonio Rocha Gastelum and Defendants Gil Garcetti, Curtis Hazell, David Demerjian, Jason Lustig, the County of Los Angeles, Willie Williams, Dan Harden, Horacio Marco, Chuck Livingston, Keith Lewis and the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs claim that their statutory and constitutional rights were violated by Defendants’ unlawful electronic surveillances.

The events that gave birth to the instant dispute were two separate narcotics wiretap investigations conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). The first investigation revolved around…

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.