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

Filing 43

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/21/16 ORDERING the Court STAYS this action as to the third through sixth causes of action. All claims asserted by Plaintiff Howard Jones are stayed pending resolution of the state proceeding. As t o the tenants, the Court DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the first and second causes of action against Defendant City of Sacramento and DENIES the motion to dismiss those two claims against Defendant Armstrong. The Tenant Plaintiffs' amended comp laint, if any, must be filed within (20) days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs' motion to for leave to file an amended complaint 37 is denied as moot. The hearing on 5/3/16 is vacated. Plaintiffs' opposition 39 failed to compl y with this Court's order re page limits. The Court therefore sanctions Plaintiffs' counsel, Moenig Law, in the amount of $150. That amount shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court within ten (10) days of the date of this order. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS, LLC;
LOWELLA OLDHAM; ADA LEEPER;
DOLLY LEEPER; ERICKA WARD; and
ALONZO MEDLEY,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.

No.

2:15-cv-954-JAM-KJN

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

13
14
15

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MATT ARMSTONG; MICHAEL BENNER;
SAM SOMERS JR.; and DOES 1-20,

16

Defendants.

17
The City of Sacramento assessed a fine against Plaintiff

18
19

Howard Jones Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff Howard Jones”) for

20

failing to abate a public nuisance at its rental property.

21

Because Howard Jones brought this action simultaneously with the

22

continuing administrative proceeding, the Court abstains by

23

staying those causes of action related to the nuisance penalty

24

and its adjudication.

25

causes of action for failure to state a claim. 1

The Court dismisses in part the remaining

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for April 5, 2016.
1

1

I.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Howard Jones rented its apartments at 1933 Los

3

Robles Blvd. to (former) tenants Lowella Oldham, Ada Leeper,

4

Dolly Leeper, Ericka Ward, and Alonzo Medley (collectively,

5

“Tenant Plaintiffs”).

6

Sacramento police officers allegedly targeted Plaintiffs’

7

property.

8

the apartments without a warrant, handcuffing and pointing guns

9

at the occupants, and conducting searches.

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 7-13.

They would frequently “raid[]” the building, entering

FAC ¶¶ 20-21.

In

10

June 2014, Sergeant Matt Armstrong (“Defendant Armstrong”) sent a

11

letter to Plaintiff Howard Jones advising that there were

12

“activities” at the property that “constitute[d] a public

13

nuisance,” including noise violations and “[t]he occurrence of

14

criminal activity.”

15

Notice (“Plaintiff’s RJN”) Exh. A at 1.

16

months, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Armstrong pressured

17

Howard Jones to evict the tenants as a means of abating the

18

nuisance.

19

the tenants to vacate the property,” but Defendant Armstrong

20

nonetheless “issued an Administrative Penalty” for failing to

21

abate the nuisance.

22

appeal followed.

23

Plaintiff brought a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court

24

seeking judicial review of the administrative decision.

25

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“Defendant’s RJN”) Exh.

26

A.

27
28

FAC ¶ 23; Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial

FAC ¶¶ 24-30.

Over the next few

Howard Jones reached “agreements with

FAC ¶ 31.

FAC ¶¶ 37-40.

An administrative hearing and
When the appeal was denied,

See

Meanwhile, Plaintiff Howard Jones simultaneously brought
this action in federal court against the City of Sacramento, the
2

1

Sacramento Police Department, and Sacramento Police Officers Matt

2

Armstrong, Michael Benner, and Sam Somers Jr. (collectively,

3

“Defendants”) (Docs. ##1, 2).

4

damages as well as a writ of mandamus.

5

The complaint originally sought

The Court granted Defendants’ first motion to dismiss the

6

complaint with leave to amend (Doc. #23).

A First Amended

7

Complaint (“FAC”) was filed, which added the Tenant Plaintiffs

8

for the first time and sought only damages (Doc. #27).

9

alleges violations of the tenants’ Fourth Amendment Rights, and

The FAC

10

that the fine and forced evictions comprised unconstitutional

11

takings, deprivations of due process, and tortious interference

12

with Plaintiffs’ lease contracts.

13

the FAC (Doc. #36).

Defendants now move to dismiss

Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Doc. #39).

14
15

II.

OPINION

16

A.

Judicial Notice

17

Both parties have filed requests for judicial notice (Docs.

18

##36-2, 39-2).

Defendants seek judicial notice of Howard Jones’s

19

Superior Court complaint, and Plaintiffs request notice of the

20

“Public Hearing Case File Outline.”

21

questions the authenticity of the documents provided.

22

therefore takes judicial notice of these documents, which are in

23

the public record and not subject to reasonable dispute.

24

Evid. 201; see Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa

25

Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006); Lee v. City of

26

Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 662, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).

27

///

28

///
3

Neither party objects to or
The Court

Fed. R.

1

B.

2
3

Analysis
1.

Younger Abstention

Defendants argue that the Court should abstain pursuant to

4

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

5

Plaintiffs’ opposition brief provided no argument on this

6

subject, and even Defendants offered only a few sentences and

7

minimal citations.

8

Younger is applicable.

9

Mot. at 12; Reply at 1.

Nonetheless, the Court has determined that

“[A]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is

10

the exception, not the rule.”

11

134 S. Ct. 584, 594 (2013) (citation and quotation marks

12

omitted).

13

circumstances: (1) state criminal prosecutions, (2) civil

14

enforcement proceedings that are “akin to criminal prosecution,”

15

and (3) civil proceedings “involving certain orders uniquely in

16

the furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform judicial

17

functions.”

18

For civil enforcement proceedings, the Court should only abstain

19

if three further “threshold elements” are met:

20

proceedings must “(1) [be] ongoing . . . ([2]) implicate an

21

important state interest, and ([3]) allow litigants to raise

22

federal challenges.”

23

Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

24

Where these elements are met, abstention is warranted if “the

25

federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the

26

state proceedings and [no] exception to Younger applies.”

27

These exceptions are “(1) [that] the state proceeding was

28

motivated by bad faith, (2) [that] the challenged statute is

Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,

Younger abstention applies in three narrow

Id. at 591-92 (citations and alteration omitted).

The state

ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp.

4

Id.

1

flagrantly unconstitutional, or (3) [] exceptional circumstances

2

are present.”

3

704477, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007) (citations omitted).

4

Here, the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Police

Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Suthers, 2007 WL

5

Department brought a nuisance proceeding against Plaintiff Howard

6

Jones because of alleged “criminal activity.”

7

This state proceeding is not itself criminal and does not affect

8

California’s “judicial functions.”

9

initiated by the government is sufficiently “akin to [a] criminal

FAC ¶¶ 31-38.

But such a nuisance action

10

prosecution” to invoke Younger principles.

11

Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604 (1975) (“[A]n offense to the State's

12

interest in the nuisance litigation is likely to be every bit as

13

great as it would be were this a criminal proceeding.”);

14

Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Washington Cty., Or., 180 F.3d 1017, 1021

15

(9th Cir. 1999) (“Civil actions brought by a government entity to

16

enforce nuisance laws have been held to justify Younger

17

abstention.”).

18

Huffman v. Pursue,

Turning to the other threshold requirements, all three are

19

met here.

First, the proceeding is on-going, because after the

20

administrative hearing and appeal, Howard Jones filed a writ for

21

state-court judicial review.

22

at *11 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2014) (“[T]he Court adopts the majority

23

approach of treating judicial review of state administrative

24

proceedings as a unitary process that is not to be interrupted by

25

federal court intervention.”); see San Jose Silicon Valley

26

Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose,

27

546 F.3d 1087, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2008) (establishing this rule in

28

dicta).

Mir v. Kirchmeyer, 2014 WL 2436285,

Second, nuisance proceedings “implicate[] important
5

1

state interests justifying abstention.”

2

Partners v. City of Corona, 2015 WL 4163346, at *6-*7 (C.D. Cal.

3

July 9, 2015) (citing World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v.

4

City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1987)) (“[B]ecause

5

the state court proceeding is a civil enforcement action seeking

6

to abate a public nuisance, it implicates important state

7

interests for purposes of Younger abstention.”).

8

have the ability to raise federal constitutional claims in the

9

state proceeding.

10
11

Cal. Outdoor Equity

And Plaintiffs

See Defendants’ RJN Exh. A at 10 (alleging

violations of due process rights).
As to the final two inquiries, Plaintiffs’ operative

12

complaint seeks only damages, but such relief would have the

13

“practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.”

14

damages “would [] cast aspersion on the competence of the[] state

15

courts to adjudicate [P]laintiff[s’] federal claims.”

16

Domestic Sales, 2007 WL 704477, at *12; see Gilbertson v.

17

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004).

18

have not argued that an exception to Younger applies here, and

19

indeed there is no basis for the Court to conclude that there was

20

bad faith, “flagrant[] unconstitutional[ity],” or other

21

exceptional circumstances.

22

Younger abstention is appropriate and that no exception applies.

23

Defendants contend that dismissal is the proper application
Reply at 1.

Awarding

Gen. Steel

Finally, Plaintiffs

The Court therefore finds that

24

of Younger.

But “when damages are at issue a

25

district court should exercise Younger abstention by staying the

26

federal action rather than dismissing it.”

27

Inv'rs v. City of Capitola, 2005 WL 1774247, at *10 (N.D. Cal.

28

July 26, 2005) (citing Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 984).
6

Los Altos El Granada

1

The Court accordingly stays the third through sixth causes

2

of action, which relate to the ongoing state proceedings about

3

the nuisance penalty.

4

reach the parties’ other arguments as to the merits of these

5

causes of action.

6

Given this conclusion, the Court does not

However, there remain two causes of action that are

7

independent of the state proceedings: the first and second causes

8

of action allege that Sacramento police officers entered and

9

searched the tenants’ apartments in violation of the Fourth

10

Amendment.

11

proceedings, so the Court will not stay the case with regard to

12

those causes of action.

13

(noting that abstention is not warranted where “the underlying

14

federal claims [are] ‘wholly unrelated’ to the issues in the

15

pending state proceeding”).

16

merits of the motion to dismiss as to the first and second claims

17

below.

18

Such allegations are unrelated to the nuisance

2.

See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 980 n.14

The Court therefore addresses the

First and Second Causes of Action

19

Plaintiffs bring two causes of actions for “unlawful entry”

20

and “unlawful search[es]” of Tenant Plaintiffs’ apartments under

21

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment.

22

Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990) (“The Fourth Amendment

23

generally prohibits the warrantless entry of a person's home,

24

whether to make an arrest or to search for specific objects.”).

25

Plaintiffs assert these claims against two defendants: Defendant

26

Armstrong and the City of Sacramento.

27
28

a.

See Illinois v.

Claims Against Defendant Armstrong

Defendants argue that the claims against Defendant Armstrong
7

1

cannot stand because they are “[v]ague and conclusory.”

2

5.

3

police officers, including Defendant Armstrong himself, entered

4

and searched the apartments without a warrant, consent, or reason

5

to suspect wrongdoing.

6

allegations as true, they sufficiently allege a Fourth Amendment

7

violation.

8

938 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss where the

9

complaint stated that the defendants “‘smashed in [the

Mot. at

The Court disagrees, because the FAC states that Sacramento

FAC ¶¶ 20-21, 75-76, 81.

Taking these

See Williams v. Cty. of Alameda, 26 F. Supp. 3d 925,

10

plaintiff's] door and forced it open’ without a warrant, probable

11

cause, exigent circumstances or consent”).

12

The Court also rejects Defendants’ argument that “Armstrong

13

was not personally involved in warrantless entries or searches of

14

tenants’ residents [sic]” and that “‘searches conducted as part

15

of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an

16

administrative purpose . . . may be permissible . . . though not

17

supported by a showing of probable cause.’”

18

at 2 (citation omitted).

19

disputes that the Court cannot resolve on a motion to dismiss.

20

The allegations in the first and second claims against Defendant

21

Armstrong are sufficient for this stage of the proceedings and

22

will not be dismissed.

23

b.

24

Mot. at 5-6; Reply

Such analyses are fraught with factual

Claims Against Defendant City of Sacramento

Defendants move to dismiss the claims against City of

25

Sacramento because Plaintiffs did not allege a policy, custom, or

26

practice to support municipality liability under Monell v. Dep't

27

of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

28

4.

Mot. at

Plaintiffs’ opposition discusses an alleged policy to effect
8

1

mass evictions, see, e.g., Opp. at 15, but does not mention any

2

policy related to unlawful entry and search of apartments.

3

Indeed, the FAC contains no allegations of that nature.

4

first and second causes of action are therefore dismissed without

5

prejudice as to Defendant City of Sacramento.

The

6
7
8
9

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court STAYS this action
as to the third through sixth causes of action.

All claims

10

asserted by Plaintiff Howard Jones are therefore stayed pending

11

resolution of the state proceeding.

12

DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the first and second causes of

13

action against Defendant City of Sacramento and DENIES the motion

14

to dismiss those two claims against Defendant Armstrong.

15

Tenant Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, if any, must be filed

16

within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

17

responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days thereafter.

18

As to the tenants, the Court

The

Defendants’

Based on these rulings, Plaintiffs’ motion to for leave to

19

file an amended complaint (Doc. #37) is denied as moot.

20

Howard Jones’s claims are now stayed and the Tenant Plaintiffs

21

have been given the opportunity to amend their remaining claims.

22

The hearing on May 3, 2016 is vacated.

23

That is,

As a final matter, Plaintiffs’ opposition (Doc. #39) failed

24

to comply with this Court’s order regarding page limits.

See

25

Order re Filing Requirements (Doc. #5) (limiting briefs to

26

fifteen pages and advising that “[a] violation of this Order will

27

result in monetary sanctions being imposed against counsel in the

28

amount of $50.00 per page”).

The Court therefore sanctions
9

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Moenig Law, in the amount of $150.

2

amount shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court within ten (10)

3

days of the date of this order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2016

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10

That