Vasquez

Vasquez v. City of Bell Gardens

Good Law
938 F. Supp. 1487·1996 WL 467179·1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17390
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 7, 1996CV-94-1595 KMW (GHKx)California6,280 words

Opinion

Opinion

Law, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court has considered the Motion for Summary Judgment/Determination as to Whether Plaintiffs Proffered Activities Constitute “Protected Speech,” filed by defendants on July 2, 1996, and has reviewed all the material filed by the parties in connection with the Motion. Based upon all briefs, exhibits, declarations, and other evidence submitted by the parties, the oral argument of counsel, as well as all files and records in this case, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety-

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Vasquez claims that he was terminated from his position as city manager of defendant City of Bell Gardens (“the City”) in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that a majority of the city council voted to terminate his contract because of his allegations of criminal wrongdoing and abuses of power by certain city councilpersons. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has identified numerous instances of speech which substantially relate to matters of inherent public concern. According to the United States Supreme Court, such speech is…

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.