Lenkner et al v. County of Tehama
Filing
26
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/6/2017 GRANTING 14 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs' amended complaint must be filed within 20 days from the date of this Order. The 23 Motion to Amend is DISMISSED as moot. (York, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ROBERT LENKNER, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
No.
2:17-cv-01839-JAM-CMK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNTY OF TEHAMA,
14
Defendant.
15
Certain citizens of Tehama County seek to contest the
16
17
County’s procedures for issuing citations and assessing fees for
18
alleged public nuisances.
19
the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
20
failure to state a claim.
21
Defendant’s motion is granted with leave to amend. 1
I.
22
For the reasons set forth below,
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The following allegations are taken as true for the purposes
23
24
The Defendant County moves to dismiss
for this motion:
Plaintiffs are citizens of Tehama County and the Bilton
25
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 November 21, 2017.
1
1
Family Revokable [sic] Trust.
2
2017, Plaintiffs received letters from County of Tehama
3
(“Defendant”) informing them that they were in alleged violation
4
of a county ordinance and that their use of their residential
5
properties had created a Public Nuisance.
6
notices stated that the effective accrual date for the subject
7
penalties was to begin Tuesday, September 5, 2017, at a rate of
8
$1,000 per day, prior to any hearing on the subject matter.”
9
at ¶ 10.
Compl. ¶¶ 5–6.
On August 31,
Id. at ¶¶ 9–10.
“The
Id.
Plaintiffs contend that the accrual of administrative
10
penalties before a hearing is a violation of their due process
11
rights and an attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs to abandon their
12
right to be heard and to object to a search of their property.
13
Id.
14
placed on real property and a forced sale in order to satisfy
15
unpaid penalties.
16
They further allege that the ordinance allows a lien to be
Id. at ¶ 11.
Plaintiffs assert two causes of action.
First, Plaintiffs
17
claim Tehama County Code Chapter 9.06—apparently the ordinance on
18
which the notices were based—deprives them of due process of law
19
under the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments and their right to be
20
free from unreasonable search and seizure.
21
Second, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant requires them to consent
22
to a warrantless search and thus deprives them of their Fourth
23
Amendment rights.
24
Id. at ¶¶ 11–12.
Id. at ¶ 13.
When Plaintiffs filed this action, they sought a Temporary
25
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction enjoining Defendant
26
from conducting a hearing pursuant to Tehama County Ordinance
27
§ 9.06.035, from assessing administrative penalties or
28
enforcement costs prior to a hearing, and from any enforcement
2
1
actions pursuant to the ordinance.
2
Restraining Order, Proposed Order, ECF No. 1-3.
3
the motion because Plaintiffs had not shown they were likely to
4
succeed on the merits of their claim or that they were likely to
5
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.
6
Order, ECF No. 12.
7
October 12, 2017.
8
Motion to Dismiss but instead filed a First Amended Complaint on
9
November 9, 2017.
Motion for Temporary
The Court denied
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on
ECF No. 14.
Plaintiffs did not oppose the
ECF No. 19.
The Court ordered the First
10
Amended Complaint stricken because it was filed outside of the
11
21-day window permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12
15(a).
13
Court unopposed.
ECF No. 22.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is before the
14
II.
OPINION
15
A.
Legal Standard
16
While the Rule 8 pleading standard does not require detailed
17
factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-
18
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
19
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
20
merely offers “labels and conclusion” or “naked assertions devoid
21
of further factual enhancement.”
22
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007)) (quotation marks
23
omitted).
24
the Court’s review is limited to the Complaint.
25
United States, 990 F.2d 451, 454 (9th Cir. 1993).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
A pleading is insufficient if it
Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp.
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
See Farr v.
26
B.
Analysis
27
The Court is compelled to dismiss the Complaint because it
28
is devoid of factual allegations supporting Plaintiffs’ claims.
3
1
On the first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that
2
penalties will accrue prior to any hearing on the subject matter.
3
Plaintiffs have not alleged any other facts concerning the
4
hearing or process, facts concerning the ordinance, or facts
5
concerning Plaintiffs’ activities that caused the notices to
6
issue.
7
that the accrual of penalties prior to hearing is a due process
8
violation where penalties do not become due until after notice
9
and a hearing.
10
See Compl.
Furthermore, the Court remains unconvinced
See Order, ECF No. 12.
As to the search and seizure allegations—included under both
11
the first and second cause of action—the Complaint contains no
12
facts supporting the claim that Plaintiffs are forced to consent
13
to a warrantless search.
14
In sum, Plaintiffs’ bare and conclusory allegations fail to
15
state a plausible claim for relief and the Complaint must be
16
dismissed.
17
without leave to amend.
18
Plaintiffs’ first attempt to plead their case and the Court is
19
not yet convinced that amendment is futile, leave to amend is
20
granted. 2
Defendant asks the Court to grant their motion
However, as the Complaint represents
III.
21
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court issued a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order in this
case on the same day Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint. ECF Nos. 18 & 19. The Order states that no further
joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except
with leave of court. Under the circumstances, and for the
reasons stated in this Order, Plaintiffs are permitted leave to
amend their complaint. Any amendment beyond that is subject to
the restrictions in the Court’s Status Order.
4
1
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend.
2
amended complaint must be filed within twenty days from the date
3
of this Order.
4
twenty days thereafter.
5
6
7
8
Plaintiffs’
Defendant’s responsive pleading is due within
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend, ECF No. 23, is dismissed as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 6, 2017
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?