Roe v. City of San Diego
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES [DOC. 30]
THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to strike affirmative defenses from the answer filed on behalf of Defendants Police Chief William Lansdowne, former police officer Kevin Friedman (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and the City of San Diego. Defendants oppose.
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.l). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Owen v. City of IndependenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Rosen v. Masterpiece Marketing Group, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2016
- San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Monsanto Co.District Court, S.D. California · 2018
- (PC) Aguilar v. TaylorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
- (PC) Spencer v. LopezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- (PC) Spencer v. LopezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.