Hogan v. Mohlenbrok et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge John A. Mendez on 03/04/25 GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss; the First and Fourth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RU HOGAN,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

CITY OF ROCKLIN, and DOES 1
THROUGH 100,
Defendants.

14
15

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

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

16

to dismiss two causes of action in Ru Hogan’s (“Plaintiff”) First

17

Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

18

asks the Court to take judicial notice of its municipal code.

19

See Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 11-2.

20

failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant’s motions.

21

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

22

failure to oppose as a non-opposition to the motions.

See Mot., ECF No. 11.

Defendant also

Plaintiff has

23

The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice of

24

sections of the City of Rocklin Municipal Code because these laws

25

are a matter of public record.

26

Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).

27

also finds Defendant’s motion to dismiss meritorious as to both

28

claims.

See Reyn’s Pasta Bella LLC v.
The Court

Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction
1

1

of emotional distress, Defendant is immune from this tort action.

2

The California Government Code provides, “Except as otherwise

3

provided by statute: A public entity is not liable for an injury,

4

whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the

5

public entity or a public employee or any other person.”

6

Gov’t Code. § 815.

7

otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable

8

for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or

9

omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested

10

in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.”

11

Code § 820.2.

12

complaints against her, issued fines, and otherwise acted on

13

Plaintiff’s non-compliance with local zoning code.

14

5, 9-12, 17-18, ECF No. 9.

15

exercise of the discretion vested in” Defendant’s employees.

16

Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2.

17

claim.

18

Cal.

The Code elsewhere states, “Except as

Cal. Gov’t

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant processed

See FAC ¶¶ 4-

These actions were “the result of the
See

As such, Defendant is immune from this

Defendant is also immune from Plaintiff’s claim for

19

negligent infliction of mental suffering.

20

same allegations as analyzed above, and the Court already found

21

that Defendant’s action were “the result of the exercise of

22

discretion vested in” them.

23

Defendant is immune from this claim.

24

Plaintiff asserts the

See Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2.

Thus,

Having determined that dismissal is proper, the Court must

25

analyze whether leave to amend should be granted.

26

without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that “the

27

complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”

28

Techs., Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir.
2

Dismissal

Intri-Plex

1

2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th

2

Cir. 2005).

3

the complaint . . . constitutes an exercise in futility . . . .”

4

Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th

5

Cir. 1989).

6

because amendment “constitutes an exercise in futility.”

7

Plaintiff has already amended her complaint, and she does not

8

oppose the present motion by suggesting that there are other

9

allegations that could save these causes of action.

10

Defendant is immune from tort liability, these causes of action

11

“could not be saved by any amendment” because they are based in

12

tort liability.

“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of

Here, dismissal without leave to amend is proper
See id.

Since

See Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., 499 F.3d at 1056.

13

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Defendant’s

14

motion in its entirety and hereby dismisses the First and Fourth

15

Causes of Action in the FAC.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: March 4, 2025

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3