legal news


Register | Forgot Password

OKORO v. CITY OF OAKLAND

OKORO v. CITY OF OAKLAND
08:30:2006

OKORO v. CITY OF OAKLAND



Filed 8/28/06




CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION





IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA





FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION FIVE











SYLVESTER OKORO,


Plaintiff and Appellant,


v.


CITY OF OAKLAND et al.,


Defendants and Respondents.





A112273



(Alameda County


Super. Ct. No. RG05215668)




Sylvester Okoro appeals from the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer of the City of Oakland, Sergeant Enoch Olivas and Officer Lisa Ausmus. By earlier order, we dismissed the appeal with regard to the City of Oakland. We now reverse the judgment with regard to Olivas and Ausmus.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY


On February 25, 2002, appellant and his wife, Ava Robinson[1], filed a complaint in federal district court against the City of Oakland (City), its police department, police chief, city manager and unnamed police officers, designated as Does 1-100. The complaint alleged causes of action for violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983), false arrest and imprisonment, battery, trespass to chattels, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and defamation. All causes of action arose from an alleged entry by Oakland police officers into appellant's home on June 28, 2001, and his subsequent arrest. Appellant's requisite claim under the California Government


Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 900 et seq., had been denied on October 16, 2001.


On March 24, 2003, the district court dismissed all defendants, except the City, for failure to properly serve (Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 4) and failure to prosecute (Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 41(b)).


On April 29, 2005, the district court found that appellant had failed to produce evidence of a â€





Description Where some but not all defendants in federal action were dismissed, and plaintiff did not obtain certificate of appealability regarding dismissed defendants, the action remained pending against dismissed defendants for purposes of rule providing that statute of limitation to file action in state court is stayed during pendency of federal court action, at least through the time for filing an appeal from the court's final order disposing of the entire action.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale