Howard Jones Investments, LLC v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 11 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/29/15. Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall file their responsive pleading within 20 days thereafter. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS,
LLC,

No.

2:15-cv-00954-JAM-DAD

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff Howard Jones Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed

18
19

the Complaint (Doc. #1) alleging three causes of action against

20

Defendants City of Sacramento and City of Sacramento Police

21

Department (collectively “Defendants”).

22

for Order (Doc. #9) allowing it to proceed with its pendent

23

petition for writ of administrative mandamus.

24

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) the Complaint. 1

Plaintiff filed a Motion

Defendants filed a

25
26
27
28

1

These motions were determined to be suitable for decision
without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for October 7, 2015.
1

1
2

I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff owns a rental property (“the Property”) in

3

Sacramento, California.

Plaintiff was notified by Defendants

4

that certain activities occurring on the Property constituted a

5

public nuisance and that Plaintiff had a legal duty to abate the

6

nuisance activity.

7

activity continued they would take further enforcement action

8

against Plaintiff, which could include the imposition of

9

administrative penalties.

Defendants indicated that if the nuisance

The parties then engaged in

10

discussions regarding possible solutions to the issue, including

11

the eviction of certain tenants on the Property.

12

Eventually, Defendants determined the Property was a

13

continuing nuisance and imposed an administrative penalty of

14

$4,999.99 on Plaintiff (“the Penalty”).

15

administrative appeal.

16

“failed to evict the tenants creating the nuisance in a timely

17

matter” and upheld the Penalty.

18

Plaintiff filed an

The hearing officer found Plaintiff

Plaintiff then filed the Complaint stating three causes of

19

action:

20

the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

21

(“§1983”); (2) “Petition for Judicial Review of Hearing Officer’s

22

Decision upholding Administrative Penalty” pursuant to California

23

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5, 1094.6; and (3) Tortious

24

Interference with Contractual Relationship under California law.

25

Plaintiffs filed a “Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus”

26

(Doc. #2) concurrently with the Complaint and in connection with

27

the second cause of action, seeking to set aside the hearing

28

officer’s decision.

(1) Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

2

1

II.

OPINION

2

A.

Request for Judicial Notice

3

Plaintiff has requested the Court take notice (Doc. #19) of

4

a “criminal case search and information” for Ada Janett Leeper, a

5

tenant of the Property.

6

determining the current motions.

7

B.

8
9

The document is unnecessary for
The request is denied.

Discussion
1.

First Cause of Action

In their Motion, Defendants contend Plaintiff’s §1983 claim

10

should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

11

relief can be granted.

12

Complaint fails to properly allege liability under Monell and

13

fails to adequately articulate the constitutional rights

14

allegedly violated.

15

requests leave to amend the Complaint in order to better state

16

the first cause of action.

17
18

MTD at pp. 3-5.

Defendants argue the

In its Opposition (Doc. #17), Plaintiff

Pl. Opp. at pp. 3-4.

The Court therefore grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s first cause of action with leave to amend.

19

2.

Second Cause of Action

20

In its Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court allow it to

21

proceed with the second cause of action in the Complaint and the

22

corresponding petition, which seeks a writ of administrative

23

mandamus.

24

requests the Court allow it to litigate the remainder of the

25

claims in the Complaint and thereafter dismiss the second cause

26

of action or remand it to the appropriate state court at the

27

conclusion of these proceedings.

28

Defendants contend the Court should not exercise jurisdiction

Pl. Motion at pp. 3-4.

Plaintiff alternatively

In their Opposition (Doc. #12),

3

1

over Plaintiff’s writ as the proper venue is the Sacramento

2

County Superior Court.

3

argue the second cause of action should be dismissed because the

4

only basis for federal jurisdiction is the first cause of action,

5

which should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

6

Opp. at pp. 6-7.

7

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants

Def.

The petition for writ of administrative mandamus requests

8

the Court to set aside the hearing officer’s decision, upholding

9

Defendants’ imposition of the Penalty.

Petition at p. 4.

10

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 allows for judicial

11

review of certain administrative orders or decisions.

12

courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such

13

California mandamus actions.

14

Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1027 n.6 (9th Cir.

15

2005).

16

a state mandamus issue raises serious considerations regarding

17

comity and federalism.”

18

rel. A.D.U., 980 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1184-85 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

19

Accordingly, federal courts have “generally been reluctant to

20

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims for writs of

21

mandate under California law.”

22

Federal

See Manufactured Home Communities,

However, a “federal court's exercise of jurisdiction over

Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. v. K.U. ex

Id.

26

Mandamus proceedings to compel a state administrative
agency to act are actions that are uniquely in the
interest and domain of state courts. It would be
entirely inappropriate for a federal court, through
exercise of its supplemental jurisdiction, to impose
itself upon such proceedings. Considerations of
federalism and comity, not generally present with
typical “pendent” state claims, loom large in the case
of state mandamus proceedings.

27

Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School District, 843 F. Supp.

28

583, 596 (N.D. Cal. 1994), overruled on other grounds, Maynard v.

23
24
25

4

1
2

City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir. 1994).
Although the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to amend its

3

federal cause of action and the Court would have original

4

jurisdiction over that claim, the Court finds exercising

5

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for a writ of

6

mandamus would be inappropriate considering the nature of the

7

claim and the attendant concerns discussed above.

8

are the better forum for seeking Plaintiff’s desired remedy.

9

Court therefore dismisses the claim without prejudice.

10

The

See 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (4).

11
12

State courts

3.

Third Cause of Action

Defendants contend the Court should decline to exercise

13

jurisdiction over the third cause of action for tortious

14

interference with a contractual relationship.

15

Their arguments center on the Court’s discretion as to whether to

16

exercise jurisdiction over this state law claim in the event the

17

Court dismisses the sole federal claim without leave to amend.

18

Because the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to amend the

19

federal cause of action, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the third

20

cause of action is denied without prejudice.

MTD at p. 6.

21
III.

22

ORDER

23

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

24

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the first cause of action for

25

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights WITH LEAVE TO

26

AMEND.

27

Plaintiff’s claim for writ of administrative mandamus and the

28

accompanying petition.

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over

The second cause of action is therefore
5

1

dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2

third cause of action is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the

Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint within

4

twenty days of the date of this Order.

5

their responsive pleading within twenty days thereafter.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2015

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Defendants shall file