Hogan v. Mohlenbrok et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge John A. Mendez on 03/04/25 GRANTING 12 Motion to Strike; the First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint are STRICKEN. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RU HOGAN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ROCKLIN, and DOES 1
THROUGH 100,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants.

16
17

No. 2:24-cv-03566-JAM-SCR

Before the Court is City of Rocklin’s (“Defendant”) motion

18

to strike three causes of action in Ru Hogan’s (“Plaintiff”)

19

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

20

Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant’s

21

motion.

22

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as a non-opposition to the motion.

23

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

See Mot., ECF No. 12.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the Court construes

24

California Code of Civil Procedure provides, “A cause of

25

action against a person arising from any act of that person in

26

furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech

27

under the United States Constitution or the California

28

Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject
1

1

to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that

2

the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that

3

the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”

4

§ 425.16(b)(1).

5

or oral statement or writing made before a legislative,

6

executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official

7

proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement

8

or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration

9

or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any

10

other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or

11

oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a

12

public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or

13

(4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the

14

constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of

15

free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of

16

public interest.”

17

prima facie showing that plaintiff’s claims arise from the

18

defendant’s constitutionally protected free speech or petition

19

rights.”

20

LLP, 18 Cal. App. 5th 95, 112 (2017).

21

Court held, “If the defendant makes the required showing, the

22

burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the

23

claim by establishing a probability of success.

24

described this second step as a ‘summary-judgment-like

25

procedure.’”

26

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

The protected conduct includes: “(1) any written

Id. 425.16(e).

“A defendant need only make a

Optional Cap., Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld
The California Supreme

We have

Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376, 384 (2016).

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations center around Defendant’s

27

involvement in the enforcement of zoning code as it relates to

28

her hens.

To enforce the code, Defendant allegedly issued
2

1

citations, processed Plaintiff’s requested accommodation, ordered

2

Plaintiff to remove her hens, Defendant employee David Mohlenbrok

3

communicated with third parties, and Officer Heather Rodgers

4

testified at a hearing.

5

¶¶ 4, 8-9, 12, 14, ECF No. 9.

6

this conduct is protected free speech under California Code of

7

Civil Procedure.

8

made “a prima facie showing” that Plaintiff’s claims arise from

9

Defendant’s constitutionally protected free speech rights.

10

Optional Cap., Inc., 18 Cal. App. 5th at 112.

See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
Defendant has demonstrated that

See Mot. at 12-13.

Accordingly, Defendant has

See

11

Because Defendant has made “the required showing, the burden

12

shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by

13

establishing a probability of success.”

14

384.

15

motion, she cannot meet her burden of demonstrating a probability

16

of success.

17

granting the motion, its review of the specific claims reveal

18

that Plaintiff does not have a probability of success.

19

Defendant explains, Defendant is immune from tort liability and

20

thus the First and Fourth Causes of Action fail.

21

16.

22

Fair Employment and Housing Act, Defendant demonstrates that

23

Plaintiff cannot prevail because she was granted the

24

accommodation she requested.

25

Plaintiff opposed the motion, the Court finds that she would be

26

unable to meet her burden.

27

///

28

///

Baral, 1 Cal. 5th at

As an initial matter, because Plaintiff has not opposed the

Although the Court need go no further before

As

See Mot. at 14-

Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for violation of California’s

See Mot. at 16-17.

3

Thus, even if

1
2
3
4

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and STRIKES
the First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action in the FAC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2025

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4