Borges

Borges v. County of Mendocino

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 21, 20223:20-cv-04537California688 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANN MARIE BORGES, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04537-SI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

v. MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY

COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, Re: Dkt. No. 94 Defendant.

15 Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony by plaintiffs’ experts is scheduled for a hearing on March 25, 2022. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 20 DISCUSSION Defendant moves to exclude the proposed expert testimony of plaintiff Ann Marie Borges, real estate agent Peter White, and former Mendocino County Interim-Agricultural Commissioner Diane Curry. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion as to Borges and White, and as such the motion is GRANTED as to these two individuals. Plaintiffs designated Ms. Curry as a …

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.