Talada v. City of Martinez et al

Filing 137

ORDER CLARIFYING FEBRUARY 12 ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 25, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JAMES L. TALADA III and MELODY LABELLA, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants. / No. C 08-02771 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER CLARIFYING FEBRUARY 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

The Court is in receipt of the parties' letter seeking clarification of the February 12 order, and this supplemental order addresses the issues raised. The February 12 order did not address certain claims asserted against defendants based on the mistaken belief that plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed those claims. The February 12 order applied to Guardsmark GP, LLC, Guardsmark, LLC, Charlie Parker, and Colin Manuel, as referred to as defendants Guardsmark. The false arrest claim asserted against defendants Guardsmark is dismissed with leave to amend. For the same reasons stated in the February 12 order addressing Martinez defendants' arguments, defendant Cristina Akeson's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' false arrest, conversion, trespass, and invasion of privacy claims is DENIED. Regarding the seventeenth claim, plaintiffs Talada and LaBella assert a claim under Section 52.1 of the California Civil Code against all defendants (except David Akeson). This statute creates a cause of action for "any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or . . . of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with by any other person through threats, intimidation, or coercion." Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(a)-(b). As plaintiff Talada argues, he averred that he was falsely arrested because of defendants' actions, including defendants allegedly obtaining an arrest warrant without probable cause and based on dubious informant information. A false arrest is enough to support a claim under Section 52.1 at the pleading stage. See Gillan v. City of San Marino, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1044 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007). The Martinez defendants' and Cristina Akeson's motion to dismiss plaintiff Talada's seventeenth claim is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not alleged such facts to support plaintiff LaBella's claim against all defendants or to support plaintiff Talada's claim against defendants Guardsmark, and accordingly plaintiff LaBella's seventeenth claim asserted against all defendants is DISMISSED and plaintiff Talada's claim against defendants Guardsmark is DISMISSED. Within SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS of this order, plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend on a normal 35-day track seeking to cure the deficiencies in the complaint and appending to the motion a proposed amended complaint.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2