Redick v. Lowes Home Ctrs.
| Decision Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-00358-SAB |
| Parties | STANLEY E. REDICK III, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND CLOSE CASE (ECF NOS. 54, 55, 57, 59 60, 61, 62)
Currently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.) Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, the parties' statements of undisputed and disputed facts, the submitted evidence, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.
Plaintiff Stanley E. Redick, III, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on March 8, 2021, against Lowe's Corporation. This action was initially assigned to District Judge Dale Drozd and Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta. On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, naming Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, as the correct Defendant (hereinafter “Lowe's” or “Defendant”). (ECF No. 10.)[1] On May 28, 2021, the Court issued an order directing Lowe's Corporation be terminated to reflect the status of the amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.)
On June 8, 2021, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 17, 2021. (EC No. 13.) On June 25, 2021, Defendant filed a notice of related case, and this action was reassigned to “Unassigned” (“NONE”) as the District Judge and to U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (ECF No. 16.)
On August 5, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendant only for a violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1 (“Bane Act”). (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend his complaint or notify the Court that he is agreeable to proceeding only on the Bane Act claim identified as cognizable. (Id.) On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 21.) However, on August 23, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the Bane Act claim and to withdraw the third amended complaint. (ECF No. 22.) On August 24, 2021, the Court issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action only proceed on the Bane Act claim; that all other claims and defendants be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court's August 5, 2021 screening order; and that Plaintiff's third amended complaint be withdrawn. (ECF No. 24.) On September 21, 2021, the District Judge adopted the Court's finding and recommendations, and this action now proceeds against Defendant on the Bane Act claim only. (ECF No. 25.)
On October 26, 2021, noting it had come to the Court's attention that although the Defendant filed a notice of related action in this case (ECF No. 6), Defendant was never served in this action prior to being assigned to the undersigned, and the Court authorized and directed Plaintiff to complete service documents. (ECF No. 26.) On December 7, 2021, Defendant filed an answer. (ECF No. 34.) On January 21, 2022, pursuant to the parties' consent, this action was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone to conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry of final judgment. (ECF No. 43.)
On January 23, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order, setting a deadline of September 30, 2022, for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 44.) On September 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and a declaration in support. (“Pl.'s MSJ”, ECF No. 54; “Pl.'s MSJ Decl.,” ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff also submitted a flash drive with deposition transcripts and video files. (ECF No. 56.) On September 29, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, a memorandum in support, and a separate statement of undisputed facts. (“Def.'s MSJ”, ECF No. 57; “Def.'s Mem.,” ECF No. 57-1; ECF No. 57-2.) Defendant's motion was set for hearing on November 9, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the Court received a disc containing additional evidence from Defendant. (ECF No. 58.) On October 6, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as well as a notice of errata pertaining to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (“Def.'s Opp'n,” ECF No. 59; ECF No. 60.)[2] On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (“Pl.'s Opp'n,” ECF No. 61.) On October 24, 2022, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. (“Def.'s Reply,” ECF No. 62.) On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response objection to the Defendant's notice of errata. (ECF No. 63.)
On November 1, 2022, the Court found the motions for summary judgment suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the November 9, 2022, hearing that was set for Defendant's motion. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff's motion was never set for hearing. (Id.) On November 17, 2022, in light of the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court continued the pretrial conference in this matter from November 29, 2022, to December 16, 2022, in Courtroom 9. (ECF No. 65.)
Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment must be entered “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).
“In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence,” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), and it “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of summary judgment,” Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
In most relevant part, Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleges Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of being involved in a shoplifting incident at the Lowe's Sonora store that occurred on November 3, 2018, when Plaintiff visited the store on November 10, 2018. (ECF No.13 at 5-6.) Plaintiff claims Defendant had Plaintiff arrested and falsely detained based on false police reports that were not based on probable cause, restricting his liberty and falsely holding him liable for crimes he did not commit. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on November 10, 2018, Defendant improperly stated Plaintiff committed a crime, leading to a false warrant, false arrest, and false imprisonment for crimes he never committed, as he was not at Lowe's on November 3, 2018, nor involved in criminal activity on November 10, 2018. Plaintiff requests the Court hold Defendant “accountable for violations under the Bane Act 52.1 for committing humiliator battery against me for a[n] illegal search and seizure being an accused citizen and not a guilty party.” (Id. at 6.)
Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's sole cause of action for violation of the Bane Act. Defendant submits the uncontroverted facts establish: (1) the Bane Act cause of action is barred by California Civil Code Section 47(b); (2) the Bane Act cause of action is barred by the California Supreme Court's holding in Jones v. Kmart, 17 Cal.4th 329 (1998) (“Jones v. Kmart”); and (3) Plaintiff cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial