Jimmy Yarbrough v. San Bernardino County

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 23, 20245:24-cv-00319California600 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I.

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2024, plaintiff Jimmy Yarbrough (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against defendants San Bernardino County, City of Hesperia, City of Victorville, Town of Apple Valley (collectively, “Municipal Defendants”) and Does 1-40 alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and related state claims arising from a November 12, 2022 traffic stop. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 21 (“SAC”).

In the SAC, Plaintiff cites three prior Central District of California cases and represents all four Municipal Defendants were named in each of these lawsuits – i.e., defendants County of San Bernardino, City of Hesperia, City of Victorville, and Town of Apple Valley. See SAC ¶¶ 80.c-e, 92.c-e. However, as the Court stated in its May 23, 2024 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Municipal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, “none of the three cases cited by Plaintiff involves defendant City of Hesperia, defendant City of Victorville, or defendant Town of Apple Valley.” Dkt. 33 at 6 n.3.

II.

DISCUSSION

“Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify by their signature that (1) they have read the pleadings or motions they file and (2) the pleading…

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.