DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT &[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

ABSTRACT: On February 5, 2018, CHARLES J. McKEE, COUNTY COUNSEL, WILLIAM M. LITT, Deputy County Counsel, Attorneys for Defendant DEAN FLIPPO, submitted DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD PFLEGER, CITY OF CARMEL, DEAN FLIPPO, District Attorney of Monterey County California, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

CONCLUSION
This is Plaintiff’s second attempt to plead her case for prospective relief with regard to District Attorney Flippo. Between this Court’s dismissal of the original Complaint and today, the law has not changed. Despite Plaintiff’s creative efforts to recast them, the facts likewise have not changed. The bottom line is that Plaintiff will not face immediate and irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Moreover, if such an injunction were to issue, it would put the U.S. District Court in the business of monitoring a California district attorney’s office and controlling which cases it can and cannot prosecute. Such a scenario would fly in the face of hallowed principles of federalism, comity, and separation of powers. See, e.g. Harrington v. Almy (1st Cir. 1992) 977 F.2d 37, 41 (“injunctive relief in this setting would do violence to prosecutorial independence even more directly than would the prospect of a damage action.”) Accordingly, Defendant Flippo respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss the AC, without leave to amend, as to Mr. Flippo and his subordinates.
The DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (pages 1-13), DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT (pages 14-32) and [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT (pages 33-34) document copy is embedded.

NOTE: Hearing Date: March 20, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 6 (4th Floor)

Defendant Dean Flippo’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Lininger 42 02-05-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD PFLEGER, CITY OF CARMEL, DEAN FLIPPO, District Attorney of Monterey County California, and DOES 1-50, Defendants.
CASE NO. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S FRCP 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
Filed 02/05/18