Rose

Rose v. City of Suisun City

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 16, 20242:21-cv-02214California3,236 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICKOLAS G. ROSE, No. 2:21-cv-02214-DAD-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

14 CITY OF SUISIN CITY, et al., PLEADINGS 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 35) 16 17 18 This matter is before the court on the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by 19 defendants Amtrak and Union Pacific Railroad Company (the “railroad defendants”) on October 20 31, 2023. (Doc. No. 35.) On November 13, 2023, this motion was taken under submission on the 21 papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. No. 36.) For the reasons explained below, the court 22 will grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings and enter judgment in the railroad 23 defendants’ favor. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On September 3, 2021, plaintiff Nickolas G. Rose filed a complaint in the Solano County 26 Superior Court initiating this tort lawsuit against defendants Suisun City, Amtrak, and unnamed 27 Doe defendants 1–10. (Doc. No. 1…

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.