Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lerma v. City of Nogales

United States District Court, D. Arizona

September 30, 2014

Diego Lerma, Plaintiff,
v.
City of Nogales; et. al, Defendants.

ORDER

FRANK R. ZAPATA, Senior District Judge.

Before the Court for consideration is the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judgment thereof.

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Plaintiff Diego Lerma filed this action, which arises out of incidents during his arrest by Nogales Police and interaction with Nogales EMTs prior to the arrest.

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. §12131-12134 ("ADA"), and state law claims of: assault, battery, negligence, inadequate training, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, vicarious liability, and exemplary damages.

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims.

On May 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle issued his Report and Recommendation, following extensive briefing and a hearing on the matter, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the record herein, grant in part, and deny in part, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as follows:

Defendants' Motion should be granted to the extent they seek summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims:

(1) that the City of Nogales had a custom or practice of tasering people indiscriminately in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (portion of Claim 1);
(2) under the ADA (Claim 2);
(3) of negligence (Claim 5) alleged against the EMTs only;
(4) of inadequate training (Claim 6);
(5) of vicarious liability (Claim 9) as to the federal claims only (the parties do not dispute that Claim 9 remains ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.