Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Case No. CU23-00406
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant CITY OF FAIRFIELD (erroneously named as FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT) moves for summary judgment in its favor against Plaintiff JOHNNY MCFARLAND JR.’s complaint alleging causes of action for civil rights violations. Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on September 28, 2022 Plaintiff was the victim of a hit and run vehicle incident. Fairfield Police Department Officer Sarah Badr, Defendant’s employee, responded to investigate the scene. As Plaintiff delivered statements on the incident to her Officer Badr allegedly twice pressed her body against Plaintiff while pretending to take notes, despite being told that Plaintiff’s body hurt from the collision.
On April 3, 2026 this matter previously came on for hearing. At that time the court advised the parties of apparent clerical errors in submitted evidence. Plaintiff was permitted to resubmit his declaration in support of his opposition; Defendant was permitted to resubmit purported body camera footage from Officer Badr. The court has received and has now reviewed the requested evidence from both parties.
Legal Standard. A defendant may move for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff cannot establish an element of his cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).) A summary judgment motion is properly granted where the evidence in support of the moving party would be sufficient to sustain a judgment in his favor and his opponent does not show facts sufficient to present a triable issue of fact. (Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 176, 181 (Parker).) The motion is not to be granted where any triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.)
The affidavits of the moving party are strictly construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (Ibid.) Reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1155
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters judicially noticed may all support a motion for summary judgment, provided they contain admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subds. (b)(1), (d).) However, a party may not utilize his own discovery responses as evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250; Great American Ins. Cos. v. Gordon Trucking, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 445, 450.) Allegations in a party’s own pleadings may not satisfy deficiencies in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) Allegations in an opposing party’s pleadings may be considered evidence, however. (Parker, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 181.)
If the party opposite a motion for summary judgment fails to file a separate statement of undisputed material facts, the court has discretion to grant the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).) However, even where a party fails to file any opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the court may only grant the motion if the moving party has met its burden of proof. (Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1086.) A defendant’s summary judgment motion in particular meets its burden of showing there is no merit to the cause(s) of action if the defendant shows that any element of the cause(s) of action cannot be proven or that there is a complete defense. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (p)(2).)
Judicial Notice. Matters subject to judicial notice may support a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(1), (f)(2).) The court takes judicial notice of two complaints Plaintiff filed in other cases, one against EconoLodge and one against Defendant, as well as the order granting Defendant’s special motion to strike in that latter case, as records of a court of this state. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
Analysis. Plaintiff presents nineteen discernable causes of action. The first fifteen are all based on Officer Badr’s alleged aggression towards and touching of Plaintiff and
state violations of criminal statutes or civil rights protections. To the extent Plaintiff’s first nine causes of action state violations of criminal statutes, Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce those violations, as he is a private citizen and not a federal or state prosecutor. Further, all fifteen of these claims fail because Defendant’s undisputed material facts establish that Officer Badr did not get inappropriately close to Plaintiff during her investigation, nor did she touch him. (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts #10.) Review of the body camera footage of the incident confirms Defendant’s undisputed material facts.
Plaintiff’s remaining four causes of action assert deprivation of rights related to public accommodations and federally funded programs. These causes of action appear to concern a dispute Plaintiff has with EconoLodge hotels and do not implicate Defendant. Defendant did not deprive Plaintiff of rights related to public accommodations or federally funded programs.
Defendant establishes Plaintiff’s inability to prove any of his causes of action. Plaintiff raises no triable issue of material fact in response. Plaintiff’s evidence in response consists of letters and declarations from Plaintiff stating Officer Badr’s alleged misconduct in court documents and communications with state and federal agencies. The court finds that Plaintiff’s evidence does not contradict Defendant’s video evidence of the investigation.
Conclusion. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
MR. JEFFERY MARSHALL vs. SHERRI GRIJALVA; ET AL.