Legal Opinion

Goolsby v. San Diego, County of

District Court, S.D. California

Decided February 18, 2020No. 3:17-cv-00564Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 17cv564-WQH (NLS) 11 THOMAS GOOLSBY, 12 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 14 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [ECF No. 137] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 20 137. For the reasons outlined below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the district 21 judge GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendant’s motion for 22 summary judgment. 23 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API