Cardinale

Cardinale v. Jones

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 13, 20242:20-cv-01325California7,093 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONNIE A. CARDINALE, No. 2:20-cv-01325-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 14 SCOTT R. JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff Connie A. Cardinale (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present 18 action by filing the operative Complaint against Defendants Sheriff Scott R. Jones 19 (“Jones”), Detective Clinton Robinson (“Robinson”), County of Sacramento (the 20 “County”), and Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”) (collectively, 21 “Defendants”).1 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 22 Judgment, which has been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 45 (“Pl.’s Mot.”), 50 (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), 23 54 (“Pl.’s Reply”). Plaintiff has also filed two Motions to Strike Defense Exhibits A and D, 24 which Defendants oppose. ECF Nos. 51, 52, 57, 58, 59. In addition, Defendants 25 subsequently filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 61, which Plaintiff 26 seeks to strike as well, ECF No. 63. For the following…

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.