Gamblin, et al v. City of Akron, et al, No. 5:2011cv00927 - Document 55 (N.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: Judgment Entry that for the reasons set forth in the 54 Memorandum Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously herewith, defendant' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion as to pla intiffs' federal claims, Counts 1, 3 and 5, is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages in Count 4, to the extent plaintiffs' punitive damages claim relates to plaintiffs 9; federal claims, is GRANTED. In the absence of any surviving federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state claims. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs state claim for assault and battery, Count 2, is DENIED as moot, and Count 2 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages in Count 4, to the extent plai ntiffs' punitive damages claim relates to plaintiffs' state law claim for assault and battery, is also DENIED as moot. Count 4, to the extent plaintiffs' punitive damages claim relates to plaintiffs' state law claim for assault and battery, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 11/25/2013. (M,De)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gamblin, et al v. City of Akron, et al Doc. 55 DOWD, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Gwen Gamblin, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Akron, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:11 CV 927 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons contained in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously herewith, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants’ motion as to plaintiffs’ federal claims, Counts 1, 3 and 5, is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages in Count 4, to the extent plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim relates to plaintiffs’ federal claims, is GRANTED. In the absence of any surviving federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state claims. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state claim for assault and battery, Count 2, is DENIED as moot, and Count 2 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages in Count 4, to the extent plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim relates to plaintiffs’ state law claim for assault and battery, is also DENIED as moot. Count 4, to the extent plaintiffs’ Dockets.Justia.com (5:11 CV 927) punitive damages claim relates to plaintiffs’ state law claim for assault and battery, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 25, 2013 Date /s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge 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.
