Lull

Lull v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 20202:16-cv-01093California15,813 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AUTOTEK, INC. and CHRISTOPHER No. 2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD

LULL,

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Several motions are before the court. Plaintiffs Autotek, Inc. and Christopher Lull (collectively “plaintiffs”) move for relief from the court’s prior order, Mot. for Relief, ECF No. 68-1, and move to amend their complaint, Mot. to Am., ECF No. 69-1. Defendants County of Sacramento, Lori Moss Hunt, Leighann Moffitt, Brian Washko, Robin Rasmussen, Bob Ivie, John Muzinich, Scott Purvis, Russ Williams, Wayne Eastman, June Powells-Mays, Tammy Derby, Paul Munoz and Jared Wickliff (collectively “County defendants” or “the County”) move for summary judgment, County MSJ, ECF No. 66-1, as does defendant Sacramento Municipal Utility District (“SMUD”), SMUD MSJ, ECF No. 70-1. On November 2, 2018, the court heard oral argument on the motions. Counsel Cris Vaughan and Khushpreet Mehton appeared for plaintiffs; counsel Wendy Motooka…

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.