Cardoso v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 10 Motion to Dismiss. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-05130 CRB

MONICA M. CARDOSO,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

Plaintiff,
v.

14

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

/

16
17

This is an excessive force case. Plaintiff Monica Cardoso says in her complaint that

18

after she was arrested for DUI and placed in a holding cell, an unidentified San Mateo

19

County Sheriff's Deputy "walked in and stated to Plaintiff, 'are you fucking stupid?' and

20

yanked her right arm so suddenly and violently that he caused a spiral fracture of Plaintiff's

21

right arm." Compl. ¶ 8. That is the entire factual record before the Court relevant to

22

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss one of Cardoso’s nine claims. See dkt. 10.

23

Defendants contend that Cardoso’s claim under California Civil Code section 52.11

24

fails in light of a recent California Court of Appeal case, Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles,

25

203 Cal. App. 4th 947 (Ct. App. 2012). In Defendants’s view, Shoyoye resolved a split in

26

authority–both among state courts and federal district courts applying state law–about

27
28

1

Known as the Bane Act, section 52.1 provides a cause of action where "a person or
persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion
. . . with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States."

1

whether something beyond an inherently coercive constitutional violation is required to state

2

a section 52.1 claim.

3

The impact of Shoyoye on Cardoso’s section 52.1 claim is not straightforward, and

4

federal district courts interpreting Shoyoye continue to disagree about its significance.

5

Compare, e.g., Hunter v. City and Cnty. of S.F., No. 11-4911-JSC, 2012 WL 4831634, at *5-

6

6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012), with Quinn v. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff, No. 10-CV-1617, 2012 WL

7

6561562, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012).

8
9

Whether Cardoso has stated a claim in this case may turn on details about the alleged
application of excessive force–details which are unavailable at this early stage in the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

litigation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Cardoso’s eighth

11

claim for relief, without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to raise the same arguments based

12

on a more complete factual record.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 11, 2013

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2012\5130\order denying motion to dismiss.wpd

2