Stewart v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 86

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FRANK MORROW'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. For the reasons stated in detail on the record at the hearing and summarized above, the motion is granted without further leave to amend. The case management conference scheduled for October 12, 2018, is vacated. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 9/14/18. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULEANA STEWART,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04478-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
FRANK MORROW’S MOTION TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT; VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 76

12
13

Before the Court is defendant Frank Morrow’s (“Morrow”) motion, filed July 20,

14

2018, to dismiss plaintiff Juleana Stewart’s (“Stewart”) Second Amended Complaint

15

(“SAC”). Stewart has filed opposition, to which Morrow has replied. The matter came on

16

regularly for hearing on September 7, 2018. David M. Helbraun of the Helbraun Law

17

Firm appeared on behalf of Stewart. Matthew Taylor of Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP

18

appeared on behalf of Morrow. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of

19

and in opposition to the motion, as well as the arguments of counsel at the hearing, the

20

Court rules as follows.1

21

On November 17, 2015, Morrow, a police officer, applied and obtained a warrant

22

for Stewart’s arrest in connection with a series of robberies committed using a black

23

BMW that had been purchased several months earlier from Bay Area Auto World (“Auto

24

World”) by a woman who identified herself as Stewart.

25
26
27
28

1

At the above-referenced hearing, the Court directed Morrow to file a police report
he presented to the Court and Stewart’s counsel at the hearing. To date, said report has
not been filed. Under the circumstances, the Court has decided to issue the instant order
without further delay.

1

In the SAC, Stewart brings two claims against Morrow: (1) a claim, pursuant to 42

2

U.S.C. § 1983, for judicial deception, based on the affidavit Morrow submitted in support

3

of his request for a warrant; and (2) a claim for negligence likewise based on said

4

affidavit and warrant request.

5

“To maintain a false arrest claim for judicial deception, a plaintiff must show that
the officer who applied for the arrest warrant deliberately or recklessly made false

7

statements or omissions that were material to the finding of probable cause” for such

8

plaintiff’s arrest. Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931, 937 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation

9

and citation omitted). “The materiality element—a question for the court—requires the

10

plaintiff to demonstrate that the magistrate would not have issued the warrant with false

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

information redacted, or omitted information restored.” Id. (internal quotations and

12

citations omitted).

13

Here, the question before the Court is whether, in obtaining the warrant, Morrow

14

misrepresented and/or omitted facts material to the determination of probable cause to

15

arrest Stewart for robbery and/or conspiracy to commit robbery, which determination

16

turns on the identity of the person who purchased the black BMW.

17

As set forth in detail at the hearing, the Court has redacted the affidavit to exclude

18

a number of statements Stewart asserts were false or misleading2 and has restored the

19

omitted fact that Stewart had reported her driver’s license stolen approximately a year

20

and a half prior to the purchase of the black BMW.3

21
22

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing and summarized below, the
Court finds the affidavit, so corrected, “would still have contained facts sufficient to

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

As discussed at length at the hearing, the Court declined to excise certain of the
assertedly false statements, which the Court found were, when read in context, neither
false nor misleading, and, on the other hand, agreed to excise certain of the statements
despite various deficiencies in the support Stewart offered for such requests.
3

The Court declined to add to the affidavit a statement that the signatures on the
license and sales documents did not match, given counsel’s acknowledgment at the
hearing that Stewart had no factual basis for such allegation.
2

1
2

establish probable cause to arrest” Stewart, see id. at 938, namely:
(1) The black BMW was sold to an individual who presented Stewart’s valid

3

California driver’s license bearing Stewart’s photograph and signature, which

4

license was accepted at Auto World by a representative who had ample

5

opportunity to observe the prospective purchaser as well as to compare said

6

purchaser with Stewart’s photograph, not only for the purpose of ensuring the

7

sale was to a licensed driver but also for the purpose of confirming the identity

8

of the person to whom Auto World would be making a loan to finance the

9

purchase;

10

(2) Either at the time of the sale or on another date prior to the date the affidavit

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

was executed, the black BMW was registered not only in Stewart’s name but at

12

Stewart’s current address, which could not have been obtained from the

13

driver’s license presented to Auto World, which listed an earlier address;

14

(3) When contacted by Morrow, Stewart refused to come to the police station to be

15

interviewed and, consequently, to be seen by him, and provided no explanation

16

for her unwillingness to do so.

17
18
19
20
21

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in detail on the record at the hearing and
summarized above, the motion is hereby GRANTED without further leave to amend.
In light of the above, the Case Management Conference scheduled for October
12, 2018, is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: September 14, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3