Rivera v. Harris County, et al, No. 4:2019cv04920 - Document 203 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 154 MOTION to Strike Anderson's New Claim, 155 MOTION to Strike Clark's New Claim, 156 MOTION to Strike Herrera's New Claim, 157 MOTION to Strike Arrellano's New Claim, 158 MOTION to St rike Carrion's New Claim, 159 MOTION to Strike Rodriguez's New Claim, 160 MOTION to Strike Vara-Leija's New Claim, 161 MOTION to Strike Verbosky's New Claim 162 MOTION to Strike Williams' New Claim, 163 MOTION to Strike Zavala's New Claim, 164 MOTION to Strike Pacifico's New Claim, 165 MOTION to Strike Rivera's New Claim, 166 MOTION to Strike Luman's New Claim.(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rguerrero, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rivera v. Harris County, et al Doc. 203 Case 4:19-cv-04920 Document 203 Filed on 06/27/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JERRY LUMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER DIAZ, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § June 27, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION H- 19-4920 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are defendant Chris Diaz’s motions to strike the plaintiffs’ “new claims.” Dkts. 154–66. Diaz contends that the plaintiffs, for the first time in their responses to Diaz’s motions for summary judgment, raised new contentions that they were compelled to support Diaz’s election campaign and that their decisions not to do so were silence that is protected by the First Amendment. Dkts. 154–66. Diaz cites case law supporting the contention that a claim that is not raised in the complaint and is raised in a response to summary judgment is improper. Dkts. 154–66 (citing Cutrera v. Bd. of Supervisors, 429 F.3d 108–13 (5th Cir. 2005)). However, in the Third Amended Complaint, under the section entitled “Chris Diaz,” the plaintiffs assert that Diaz required employees to work for his private party and perform certain campaign functions. Dkt. 55 ¶ 18. It goes further to say, “Diaz required Precinct Two employees to perform these essential campaign functions and conditioned employment upon their performance.” Id. ¶ 19. It then notes that “[e]mployees who also generally spoke out or refused to participate in the Diaz campaign would also be disciplined.” Id. ¶ 20. And, “[e]mployees who supported opposition candidates would be disciplined by Diaz.” Id. ¶ 21. The court finds that the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint provide fair notice that the plaintiffs were arguing that Diaz was Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:19-cv-04920 Document 203 Filed on 06/27/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 compelling speech by requiring support of his campaign and that refusing the participate was silent speech. The motions to strike (Dkts. 154–66) are DENIED. Signed at Houston, Texas on June 27, 2022. _________________________________ Gray H. Miller Senior United States 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.
