Doe

Doe v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 20222:21-cv-01438California6,262 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA No. 2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD DOE, a fictitious name, and “I.D.,” a fictitious name, by and through her next friend, MARIA DOE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE; DARRYL RODERICK;

JAGDEEP SINGH, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Sushma Giri; V & N ASSOCIATES, LLC; and

ALIDA ESTRADA,

19 Defendants.

21 Through the present lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege they were unlawfully evicted during the COVID-19 pandemic from an apartment in Sacramento managed by Defendant Alida Estrada and owned by Defendant Jagdeep Singh. Plaintiffs, a single mother and her two children, allege that Defendant Darryl Roderick, a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy, wrongfully assisted Defendant Estrada in effectuating their eviction. Plaintiffs’ currently operative pleading, the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), contains sixteen different causes of action asserting, in addition…

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.