By using such vague terms, Plaintiffs place the burden on Defendants to identify the actions to prepare for the deposition. No attorney-client relationship is formed by use of this site. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not. Intelius is the leading provider of public data about people and their connections to others. On December 22, 2017, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding a dispute as to Plaintiffs' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 b 6 deposition notice. Because the Rule 30 b 6 deposition notice is overly vague and seeks an improper expert opinion, the Court quashes the deposition notice.
The information you access through this site is not legal advice. If the district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the action must be remanded back to the state court. Third, Defendants contend that the Rule 30 b 6 deposition notice is vague and overbroad. The former persons must be designed as Rule 26 experts and must prepare a report setting forth their opinions and the bases therefore. Although our directory recognizes attorneys authorized to practice law in each state and attorneys who are board certified by state and national certification programs, Lawyer Legion is not affiliated with any associations or specialty certification programs. Your access and use of this site is subject to additional. Plaintiffs argue that the Rule 30 b 6 deposition notice is not vague because the City investigated the officers' actions in this incident and deemed them appropriate per policy.
Lawyer Legion is not a lawyer referral service. × Avvo Rating Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. City of Vallejo, the plaintiff noticed a Rule 30 b 6 deposition, and asked questions such as whether the officers' decision to enter the apartment without a search or arrest warrant was consistent with police training, and whether an officer could arrest an individual in their own home without a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances based on training received. Plaintiff Silva saw the police dog and retreated to his bedroom, locking the door. The City responds that four of Vargas's causes of action are Monell claims brought pursuant to 42 U. Vargas argues that his amended complaint alleges claims solely under the California Civil Code and the California Constitution.
When you log in with your temporary password, you'll be asked to set a new password. Alfa Chemicals Italiana, 258 F. The district court also raised concerns as to depositions of a party's employee, where there would be additional risks of attorney-client or work product issues. However, even if the Court construes these filings as an amended notice of removal, these were both filed more than thirty days after the City was served the amended complaint. In the notice of removal, the City notes that it will likely be representing the individual Richmond Defendants if any such individuals are served. The officers proceeded to break down the bedroom door, and the police dog attacked Plaintiff Silva, biting him repeatedly on his right arm.
Plaintiff Silva was released and transported to a medical facility for treatment of the injuries inflicted by the police dog. First, the amended complaint alleges only state law claims. Vargas argues that the City's notice of removal, filed on January 26, 2018, was untimely because Defendants were served with the initial complaint on September 6, 2017. Rosales, asserting various civil rights violations. However, under either line of authority, a notation in the state docket would be sufficient to provide the City notice that a co-defendant had been served. Vargas concedes in reply that his amended complaint asserts some federal causes of action. Intelius does not provide consumer reports and is not a consumer reporting agency as defined by the.
This action is hereby remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court. Other courts allow removing defendants to rely on the state court docket for filed proofs of services. The City also contends that its counsel only accepted service on the City's behalf, and that the remaining Richmond police officers have not yet been served. These defendants were not properly served parties at the time of removal. The Court will grant the motion. .
Therefore, Defendants filed the notice of removal within the required thirty day period. Plaintiffs do not, however, address Dagdagan or Defendants' objection that Plaintiffs are essentially seeking an improper expert opinion. Now before the Court is Plaintiff Manuel Vargas's motion to remand this case to the Contra Costa Superior Court. First, Defendants assert that the Rule 30 b 6 deposition notice must be quashed because it seeks fact discovery related to the incident, even though the fact discovery phase has passed and only discovery related to Monell liability is permitted. Such questions are properly directed at an expert, not a non-expert deponent, especially if that individual lacks personal knowledge as to the actions taken by the officers. While Plaintiffs may seek information on what the City's customs, policies, or practices are, Plaintiffs are going a step further by asking that the non-expert deponent opine as to the application of those policies and practices taken by the officers in this case.
Plaintiffs' deposition notice concerns the following deposition topic: Whether or not the acts of the San Pablo Police Department employees, officers and their supervisors, pertaining to the matters giving rise to this lawsuit i. The City provides no support for this contention. Third, the notice of removal failed to join all proper defendants. Plaintiff was not authorized to file an additional brief. Non-designated individuals could be asked about actions that they personally took, but not on hypotheticals.
Please visit for all your employment screening needs. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. An explanation in the notice of removal is therefore required. Second, Defendants argue that the Rule 30 b 6 deposition notice improperly seeks an expert opinion from a non-designated expert. However, Vargas admits in his opening brief and in reply that Fagan has not yet been properly served.
The City argues that because there was no properly served defendants at the time of the removal, the City did not need consent before removal. These acts include, but are not limited to: 1. Timeliness Generally, a notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after the initial complaint or summons is served on the Defendants. A temporary password has been sent to. Each voucher will expire in 30 days, if not used. Like the district court in Dagdagan, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are seeking an expert opinion from a non-designated expert.