Bosco v. County of Sonoma
Estate of Nino Bosco, by and through sucessor in interest, Frauka Kozar v. County of Sonoma
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-04859
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Estate of Nino Bosco v. County of Sonoma: Judge Breyer granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Estate of Nino Bosco’s claims against Mark Essick and Mazen Awad in their official capacities were dismissed through the granted portion of the motion. The court denied the motion as to all other claims, including the other claims identified in the order.
What happened
Estate of Nino Bosco, by and through sucessor in interest, Frauka Kozar, sued the County of Sonoma, Mark Essick, and Mazen Awad. The defendants asked the court to dismiss Fourteenth Amendment claims brought under a federal civil-rights law, and the County also sought dismissal of a disability-discrimination claim.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the Estate’s claims against Essick and Awad in their official capacities. It denied the motion as to all other claims.
Judge Charles R. Breyer issued the order on October 21, 2020. The ruling allowed the other claims to continue, according to the opinion.
The detailed version
- Bosco v. County of Sonoma · No. 3:20-cv-04859
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
Defendants County of Sonoma, Mark Essick, and Mazen Awad moved to dismiss claims brought by the Estate of Nino Bosco. The Estate asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The County also moved to dismiss the Estate’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal disability-discrimination statute.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to the Estate’s claims against Essick and Awad in their official capacities. It denied the motion as to all other claims. The excerpt does not provide further details about the allegations or explain the specific basis for the claims that remained.
Judge
Judge Charles R. Breyer entered the order on October 21, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.