Soto

Soto v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 11, 20212:19-cv-00910California5,140 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SILVIA SOTO, LATANYA ANDREWS, No. 2:19-cv-00910-TLN-DB and minors M.M.S. and M.M.S., by and through their guardian ad litem, SILVIA SOTO, individually and as successors-in- interest to the ESTATE OF MARSHALL ORDER

MILES,

14 Plaintiffs, 15 v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, BLAKE

GRINDER, KENNETH LLOYD, JOHN

HIGLEY, ANDREW GARSIDE, GREG

WHITE, KELLEY BUNN, GREGORY

JOHNSON, CHARLES GAILEY, SCOTT

JONES, PATRICIA ROBINSON-HARD, and Does 1 through 100, 20 Defendants.

22 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Silvia Soto, individually and as guardian ad litem for M.M.S. and M.M.S., and Latanya Andrews’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Modify the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants Kelley Bunn, County of Sacramento, Charles Gailey, Andrew Garside, Blake Grinder, John Higley, Gregory Johnson, /// /// Scott Jones, and Kenneth Lloyd (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 64.) For the reasons set…

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.