Bell v. Lee

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 20233:13-cv-05820California3,746 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 VINCENT KEITH BELL, Case No. 13-cv-05820-SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS SAC; GRANTING

KEN LEE, et al., DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REOPEN

DISCOVERY; RE-SETTING

Defendants. PRETRIAL DATES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 195, 205, 207, 208

13 Defendant City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) has moved to dismiss plaintiff Vincent Bell’s second cause of action (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Monell Liability and Supervisory Liability against the City and County of San Francisco) from the second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 195. The City also moves to re-open discovery to allow it to gather additional information related to the Monell claim. Dkt. No. 205. The parties have raised various other discovery disputes that they wish the Court to resolve. Dkt. No. 207. These matters came on for hearing on September 8, 2023. 21 …

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.