Warkentine

Warkentine v. Soria

Good Law
152 F. Supp. 3d 1269·2016 WL 259108·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7849
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2016Case No. 1:13-cv-01550-MJSCalifornia13,183 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seng, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NOS. 84, 86-87)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Edward Warkentine and Daniel Tankérsley (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action on September 25, 2013. They are proceeding on a second amended complaint filed on June 2, 2014, alleging, generally, that Defendants searched, seized, and took Plaintiffs’, personal property without any compénsátion in violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 Ú.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments'. (ECF No. 55.) This matter is before the undersighed for all purposes pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 62.)

This action proceeds against the following Defendants 1 :

This case is set for a pretrial conference on January 29, 2016, at 1:30 ,p.m., and a jury trial on March 1, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (ECF No. 109.)

On September 30, 2015, Defendants the City, Soria, Gosserand, Galvin, Lemus, Amador, and Chojnacki (collectively, “the Mendota Defendants” or “Defendants”) moved for summary judgment on all of…

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.