Khan v. City of Lodi

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/29/2021 GRANTING Defendants' 60 Motion to Dismiss. This Court DISMISSES all nine state law claims (the Second through Tenth Causes of Action), the claim for municipal liability under Monell against Defendant City of Lodi as stated in the First Cause of Action, and any other civil rights claim asserted within the First Cause of Action with the exception of false arrest. Defendant Hitchcock is hereby ORDERED to file an answer to Plaintiff's remaining constitutional false arrest claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as stated in the First Cause of Action, within thirty days of the electronic filing of this Order. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MUDDSAR KHAN,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

No. 2:17-cv-02169-MCE-EFB

v.

ORDER

CITY OF LODI, LODI POLICE
OFFICERS Michael Hitchcock,
Individually, (N) Woods, Individually,
and Does 1 through 30, Jointly and
Severally,

18

Defendants.

19
20

In this action, Plaintiff Muddsar Khan (“Plaintiff”) alleges he was wrongfully

21
arrested following a negligently performed investigation that falsely implicated him in a
22

strong-arm robbery. Plaintiff’s lawsuit names the City of Lodi, where the robbery

23
allegedly occurred, and two Lodi Police Officers, Michael Hitchcock and N. Woods, as
24
25
26

Defendants.1 Now before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 60)
certain claims and Plaintiff’s concurrent request to withdraw those same claims. For the
foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

27
28

1

This Order will refer to said Defendants collectively unless otherwise noted.

1

1

Previously, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s civil rights claims—excessive force and

2

a Monell claim for municipal liability—and certain state law claims with leave to amend.

3

Mem. and Order, ECF No. 56. In response, the Plaintiff filed the Fourth Amended

4

Complaint (“Complaint”) in a timely fashion. Pls. Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 57. The

5

Complaint alleges ten causes of action—various civil rights claims encompassed within a

6

single count for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and nine state law claims. However, the

7

Complaint mainly re-alleged the allegations contained in its predecessor, the Third

8

Amended Complaint, without adding new factual allegations, save those supporting a

9

constitutional claim for false arrest.

10

Defendants then filed the present Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ nine state law

11

claims, and the civil rights claims to the extent they do not relate to false arrest. While

12

conceding that the constitutional false arrest claim is “facially valid,” (Defs. Mem. Supp.

13

Mot. to Dismiss, 6:7–6:20, ECF No. 60) Defendants maintain that none of the state law

14

claims can be maintained because Plaintiff’s Complaint still does not show he complied

15

with the requirements for presenting a tort claim as mandated by the California

16

Government Claims Act. Id. at 7:20–9:6. Additionally, with respect to Plaintiff’s civil

17

rights claims, Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to allege any new facts to remedy the

18

Monell claim’s deficiencies as identified in the Court’s previous Order. Id. at 7:4–7:8.

19

Plaintiffs, in meeting and conferring with Defendants in the wake of their Motion,

20

have agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims except the first cause of action to the extent

21

in pertains to false arrest. Pls. Opp’n to Defs. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 66. This Court

22

construes this request as a having been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure, Rule 15. Defendants corroborate the Plaintiff’s offer in this respect and have

24

made an identical request for dismissal. Defs. Reply to Pls. Opp’n, ECF No. 67.

25

Since both parties agree to which claims should be dismissed, no further analysis

26

of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendants’ arguments for dismissal is necessary. Thus, this

27

Court DISMISSES all nine state law claims (the Second through Tenth Causes of

28

Action), the claim for municipal liability under Monell against Defendant City of Lodi as
2

1

stated in the First Cause of Action, and any other civil rights claim asserted within the

2

First Cause of Action with the exception of false arrest.

3

Defendant Hitchcock is hereby ordered to file an answer to Plaintiff’s remaining

4

constitutional false arrest claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as stated in the First

5

Cause of Action, within thirty days of the electronic filing of this Order.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2021

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3