Lancaster claims, among other things, false arrest and false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, defamation of character and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Oakland law firm Jarvis, Fay Doporto and Gibson is handling the city's case. In the motion to dismiss, the firm claims the city cannot be sued "for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents."
The firm also says in its motion that Lancaster was not deprived of his rights, he has improperly sued Pleasanton, that Lancaster's suit leaves out key facts and that it doesn't tie the case together properly.
The motion to dismiss also claims that both the city and Martens are immune to prosecution on a number of the claims made by Lancaster.
In January, Pleasanton's first motion to dismiss was thrown out after Lancaster's attorney filed an amended lawsuit. The new motion to dismiss is set to be heard Feb. 14.
This story contains 212 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.