Trujillo

Trujillo v. City of Ontario

Good Law
428 F. Supp. 2d 1094·2006 WL 1109389·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45196
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 14, 2006EDCV04-1015-VAP SGLXCalifornia16,362 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phillips, J.

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

Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment came before this Court for hearing on March 20, 2006. After reviewing and considering all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Motions, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 13, 2004, and their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 28, 2004. Plaintiffs are officers of the City of Ontario Police Department (“OPD”). [FAC ¶¶ 3-9.] They allege that in 1996, Defendants secretly installed a video camera in the OPD’s men’s locker room. [Id, ¶¶ 1, 28-32.]

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification on April 14, 2005, certifying the following class: “[A]ll persons who were employed by the Ontario Police Department or volunteered for the Ontario Police Department, used the Department’s men’s locker room during the period in which the surveillance equipment was installed, and were recorded by the surveillance…

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.