Bey

Bey v. Malec

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 28, 20203:18-cv-02626California5,641 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAQ BEY, Case No. 18-cv-02626-SI

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

9 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

10 JARED MALEC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 100 11 Defendants.

12 13 On March 6, 2020 defendants Jared Malec, Kevin Goodman, Ronald Shepard, Dino Cristiani 14 and Andrew Yu (collectively “defendants”) filed the instant motion for summary judgment arguing 15 there are no material issues of fact regarding plaintiff Raq Bey’s only remaining cause of action for 16 excessive force. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for 17 resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth 18 below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion. 19 20 BACKGROUND1 21 On October 31, 2017 around 11:00 p.m., Plaintiff Raq Bey was driving his vehicle in 22 Emeryville, California on 40th Avenue. Dkt. No. 1 at 152 (Complaint); Dkt. No. 100 at 7 (Motion 23 for Summary…

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.