Daenesha Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank N A et al

Filing 10

IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than October 20, 2014, how Plaintiff has alleged a viable § 1983 claim. In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff may file a writ ten response, file a First Amended Complaint, or elect to dismiss her § 1983 claim. Should Plaintiff elect to dismiss her § 1983 claim, the Court would elect not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims and remand the action to Los Angeles Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-7613 PA (FFMx)

Title

Daenesha Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 8, 2014

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Julieta Lozano

None

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”) and Juan Melara (“Melara”) (collectively “Defendants”). The Notice of Removal asserts that
this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the action filed by plaintiff Daenesha Caldwell
(“Plaintiff”) as a result of the Complaint’s first claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each of the
remaining eleven claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was originally filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court, allege state law claims.
The Complaint’s sole federal claim alleges that Wells Fargo and Mellara violated Plaintiff’s
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when Melara “unlocked and searched her desk, purse and other
personal belongings while she was gone. As a result of this search, Wells Fargo voluntarily handed over
Ms. Caldwell’s cell phone, purse and keys to Ms. Caldwell’s vehicle and residence to the police without
a warrant.” (Compl. ¶ 21.)
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim does not appear to allege a viable federal claim. To prove a violation of
§ 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants: “(1) deprived [her] of a right secured by the
Constitution, and (2) acted under color of state law.” Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th
Cir. 1989). For purposes of § 1983 claims alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, courts treat
the Fourteenth Amendment’s “state action” requirement and § 1983’s “color of law” requirement as
“equivalent.” Id. at 1148. “Under § 1983, a claim may lie against a private party who ‘is a willful
participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state
officials in the challenged action, are acting ‘under color’ of law for purposes of § 1983 actions.’”
Degrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24,
27-28, 101 S. Ct. 183, 186, 66 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1980)). “[A] bare allegation of such joint action will not
overcome a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff must allege ‘facts tending to show that [the private party]
acted ‘under color of state law or authority.’” Id. (quoting Sykes v. State of Cal., 497 F.2d 197, 202 (9th
Cir. 1974)); see also Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, Melara’s search of Plaintiff’s desk, and Wells Fargo’s “voluntary” handing over of items
from that search does not appear to be state action. “A private person cannot act unilaterally as an agent
or instrument of the state; there must be some degree of governmental knowledge and acquiescence. In
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-7613 PA (FFMx)

Date

Title

October 8, 2014

Daenesha Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

the absence of such official involvement, a search is not governmental. And once a private search is
completed, the subsequent involvement of government agents does not retroactively transform the
original intrusion into a governmental search.” United States v. Sherwin, 539 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir. 1976).
As a result, the facts alleged in the Complaint do not appear to state a viable federal claim. See Franklin
v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A § 1983 plaintiff . . . must show that a defendant’s actions
are ‘fairly attributable’ to the government.”) (quoting Collins, 878 F.2d at 1151).
The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than October 20, 2014,
how Plaintiff has alleged a viable § 1983 claim. In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff may
file a written response, file a First Amended Complaint, or elect to dismiss her § 1983 claim. Should
Plaintiff elect to dismiss her § 1983 claim, the Court would elect not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and remand the action to Los Angeles Superior
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2