Anselmo et al v. Mull et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/6/12: The United States' motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Shasta County has twenty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint, if it can do so consistent with this Order. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
----oo0oo----

12
13
14
15

REVERGE ANSELMO and SEVEN
HILLS LAND AND CATTLE
COMPANY, LLC,
NO. CIV. 2:12-1422 WBS EFB

16
Plaintiffs,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

v.

Defendants.
/

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

RUSS MULL, LESLIE MORGAN, a
Shasta County AssessorRecorder, COUNTY OF SHASTA,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF SHASTA, LES BAUGH
and GLEN HAWES,

COUNTY OF SHASTA, and COUNTY
OF SHASTA, for the People of
the State of California,
Cross-Complainant,
Cross-Complainant,

1
2
3
4
5

v.
REVERGE ANSELMO; SEVEN HILLS
LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY LLC;
NANCY HALEY, MATTHEW RABE,
MATTHEW KELLEY, ANDREW
JENSEN;
and DOES 1 THRU 50,

6
Cross-Defendants.
7

/

8
9
----oo0oo---10
Plaintiffs Reverge Anselmo and Seven Hills Land and
11
Cattle Company (“Seven Hills”) filed an action in state court
12
against defendants Russ Mull, Leslie Morgan, Shasta County, the
13
Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta (“Board of
14
Supervisors”), Les Baugh, and Glen Hawes, related to
15
defendants’ allegedly wrongful interference with plaintiffs’
16
use of a portion of their land.

Shasta County brought third-

17
party claims seeking indemnification and contribution from
18
three employees of the United States Army Corps of Engineers
19
(“Army Corps”), and the action was removed to federal court.
20
Currently before the court is the United States’
21
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

(Docket No. 8.)

23
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

24
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit arose from a dispute between the
25
parties regarding grading carried out on plaintiffs’ land.
26
Plaintiffs allege that county officials engaged in a variety of
27
improper behavior that interfered with plaintiffs’ use of their
28
property, including issuing wrongful notices of grading
2

1

violations, (Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) ¶¶ 30, 40 (Docket No. 1,

2

Ex. B)), filing false reports with various officials and

3

agencies, (id. ¶¶ 23, 27), requiring an unnecessary

4

environmental impact study, (id. ¶¶ 44-47), and wrongfully

5

denying plaintiffs’ application for a Williamson Act contract,

6

(id. ¶¶ 44, 49-58).

7

Plaintiffs further allege that as part of the county

8

officials’ campaign against Anselmo, Andrew Jensen, an employee

9

of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,1

10

attempted to intimidate Anselmo by soliciting governmental

11

agencies including the Army Corps to “obtain assertions of

12

violations of other laws” in order to “create a ‘piling on’

13

condition” that would “deprive . . . SEVEN HILLS of its right

14

to hold and use real property” and violate Seven Hills’

15

constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth

16

Amendments.

(Id. ¶ 28.)

Shasta County filed a third-party complaint seeking

17
18

contribution from three employees of the Army Corps.

(Docket

19

No. 1 Ex. A.)

20

state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) and § 2679(d)(2),

21

(Docket No. 1), and certified under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 2697, that the Army Corps employees were acting within the

The United States then removed the action from

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs named Jensen as a defendant in the action
originally filed in state court, but have since settled their
claims against him. (Shasta County’s Req. for Judicial Notice Ex.
2 (Docket No. 24-1).)
The court includes this fact by way of explanation only.
Because the court does not rely on either the Stipulation for
Dismissal with Prejudice or the original complaint filed in state
court attached to Shasta County’s Request for Judicial Notice, the
court denies the request as moot.
3

1

scope and course of their employment at the time of the alleged

2

conduct, (Docket No. 3).

3

substituted in place of the Army Corps employees.

4

4.)

The United States was then
(Docket No.

5

II.

Discussion

6

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a

7

plaintiff must plead “only enough facts to state a claim to

8

relief that is plausible on its face.”

9

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v.

This “plausibility

10

standard,” however, “asks for more than a sheer possibility

11

that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

12

U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and “[w]here a complaint pleads facts

13

that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it

14

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

15

of entitlement to relief.’”

16

557).

17

court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and

18

draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.

19

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other

20

grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto,

21

405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

In deciding whether a plaintiff has stated a claim, the

Under California’s equitable indemnity doctrine,

22
23

indemnity and contribution are subject to the limitations on

24

liability that would otherwise be available against the injured

25

party.

Prince v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 45 Cal. 4th 1151, 1158

26

(2009).

The claims on which Shasta County seeks contribution

27

are § 1983 claims that could not be successfully brought

28

against the United States.

Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d
4

1

898, 908 (9th Cir. 2011); Accardi v. United States, 435 F.2d

2

1239, 1240 (3d Cir. 1970).

3

the United States’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a

4

claim.2

5

Accordingly, the court must grant

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ motion

6

to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) be, and the same hereby is,

7

GRANTED.
Shasta County has twenty days from the date of this

8
9

Order to file an amended complaint, if it can do so consistent

10

with this Order.

11

DATED:

August 6, 2012

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
In denying Shasta County’s motion to challenge the
certification that the Army Corps employees were acting in the
scope of their employment, the court recognized that if the claims
brought against them were not subject to the Westfall Act, it would
theoretically be possible for Shasta County to sue the Army Corps
employees in their individual capacity for contribution or
indemnity on the § 1983 claims brought against the county. That
question is not presently before the court.

5