Travis Irvin Middleton v. Raul Vasquez et al, No. 2:2007cv08089 - Document 120 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 114 . For the reasons set forth herein and in the Magistrate's Repor t, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: (1) the fourth cause of action is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants; (2) all other causes of actio n are dismissed with prejudice as to Alliant Insurance and National Union;and (3) the first, second, and third causes of action against the remaining defendants are dismissed without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF

Travis Irvin Middleton v. Raul Vasquez et al Doc. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 TRAVIS IRVIN MIDDLETON, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 RAUL VASQUEZ, et al., Defendants. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 07-8089-SVW(AGR) ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND JUDGMENT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, 17 the records on file, and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the 18 United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"). 19 reviewed de novo the portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has 20 objected. 21 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, except as follows: Further, the Court has The Court ADOPTS the Report, accepting the findings and 22 A. 23 Because it is unclear from the record that the issue of conspiracy Second Cause of Action - Conspiracy 24 was actually litigated and necessarily decided in state court, the 25 Court cannot conclude that the second cause of action is collaterally 26 estopped. Nonetheless, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that the 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 second cause of action should be dismissed without prejudice.1 2 B. 3 Because it is unclear whether the issue of invasion of privacy was Third Cause of Action - Invasion of Privacy 4 actually litigated and necessarily decided in state court, the Court 5 cannot agree that this claim is collaterally estopped. 6 the Court agrees with the Report that the third cause of action should 7 be dismissed without prejudice. Nonetheless, 8 To conclude, for the reasons set forth herein and in the 9 Magistrate's Report, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motions to 10 dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. 11 ADJUDGED that: (1) the fourth cause of action is dismissed with 12 prejudice as to all Defendants; (2) all other causes of action are 13 dismissed with prejudice as to Alliant Insurance and National Union; 14 and (3) the first, second, and third causes of action against the 15 remaining defendants are dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 DATED: July 31, 2013 STEPHEN V. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 "Under California law, which is applicable here, the following requirements must be met for collateral estoppel to apply: First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding." Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 784 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.