Lindhurst

Lindhurst v. City of Berkeley

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 20244:23-cv-04513California3,404 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN LINDHURST, Case No. 23-cv-04513-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

CITY OF BERKELEY’S MOTION TO

9 v. DISMISS AND ITS REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE

10 CITY OF BERKELEY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 15 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Berkeley’s motion to dismiss and its 14 associated request for judicial notice. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. The Court finds this matter appropriate 15 for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the City’s motion to dismiss and its request 17 for judicial notice. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff Brian Lindhurst (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the 20 City of Berkeley (“the City” or “Defendant”) and David Marble. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). In 21 his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in July 2022, after a visit to his friend’s home in Antioch, 22 …

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.