Batiste

Batiste v. City of Richmond

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 27, 20233:22-cv-01188California5,142 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DAVID BATISTE, Case No. 22-cv-01188-AMO

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT

v. CITY OF RICHMOND’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT &

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al., DENYING DEFENDANT MENDOZA’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

Defendants. JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 69,

Pending before the Court are Defendant City of Richmond’s (“Richmond”) and Defendant Hugo Mendoza’s (“Mendoza”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motions for summary judgment. The Court heard argument on the motions on June 15, 2023. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant Mendoza’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant Richmond’s motion for summary judgment, for the reasons stated below. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff David Batiste filed this employment…

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.