Gerald Baros v. John San Bernardino County Deputy Sheriff Doe 1

Facts And Facts Controverting Defendant’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts” or “Pl.’s SOF”). ECF No. 103, Pl.’s SOF. Notably, in Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts, Plaintiff notes that Defendant repeatedly cites information from the SAC in support of Defendant’s Statement of Facts, which Plaintiff repeatedly “[d]isputed in part” on the basis that “[t]he [SAC] was supplanted by the [TAC], filed May 6, 2020.” See, e.g., id. at 2-3, 5. On the same day Plaintiff submitted Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts, Plaintiff also opposed Defendant’s MSJ (“Opposition” or Opp’n”). See ECF No. 104, Opp’n. On November 2, 2020, Defendant submitted a Reply in Support of her MSJ (“Reply”)2 and objections to evidence submitted by Plaintiff (“Objections”). ECF No. 106, Reply; ECF No. 108, Objections. On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Opp’n to MSJ. ECF No. 109. Here, the record reveals that Defendant has moved for summary judgment against claims in an obsolete pleading—the SAC—which was replaced by the operative TAC that appears to include an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, as well as additional facts that…