Lefiell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISSgranting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Dismiss. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/2/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BARBARA LEFIELL,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. 18-cv-00522-SI

v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Currently before the Court is defendant City of Martinez’s motion to dismiss plaintiff

14

Barbara Lefiell’s complaint. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion. Dkt.

15

No. 31. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

16

defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed not later

17

than May 18, 2018.

18
BACKGROUND

19
20

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 24, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. According to Ms.

21

Lefiell, on March 28, 2017, she was “struck and severely injured” by an Amtrak train while

22

waiting at a railroad crossing in Martinez, California. Compl. ¶ 1. In her most specific iteration,

23

plaintiff claims that while waiting on a platform near the Amtrak station, she was “struck by

24

Amtrak’s train…operating on tracks and property owned and controlled by Defendant.” Id. ¶ 12.

25

Plaintiff alleges that defendant was responsible for the design, supervision, operation, and

26

evaluation of the platform, sidewalk, and general area where the accident occurred. Id. According

27

to Ms. Lefiell, defendant was negligent in overseeing and maintaining the accident site, thereby

28

creating a dangerous condition.

The alleged negligence includes “negligent and careless

1

maintenance, design, construction, management, repair, inspection, fencing, railing, approaching

2

sidewalks, placing and allowing a platform and sidewalk to be placed too close to the railroad

3

tracks…or that the accident site had no warnings, warning signs, barriers, and/or flashing lights

4

and other signals alerting the public…and plaintiff of the dangerous condition.” Id. ¶ 20. Ms.

5

Lefiell alleges that defendant was aware of this dangerous condition because “other members of

6

the public have been struck by moving railroad equipment at and near the accident site.” Id. ¶ 22.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) violation of Government Code

8

sections 835, 815.2(A), 815.6, 835.2, and 840.4 against defendants City of Martinez, State of

9

California, County of Contra Costa, and Does 1-50; and (2) negligence against defendants Union

10

Pacific, Amtrak, Brian Smith, and Does 51-100. Essentially, Ms. Lefiell seeks to hold the City

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

liable for (1) dangerous condition of public property; and (2) public employee negligence.
Defendant City of Martinez filed a motion to dismiss on February 22, 2018. Dkt. No. 11.

12
13

Defendant argues plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because plaintiff’s single cause of

14

action against the City conflates separate theories of liability that are either inapplicable or

15

inapposite. As a result, defendant argues plaintiff’s complaint fails to conform to F.R.C.P. 8.

16

(Defendant concedes plaintiff has pled an appropriate cause of action under Government Code

17

section 835, but argues that plaintiff otherwise fails to state a claim.) Plaintiff filed an opposition

18

on March 7, 2018. Dkt. No. 31.

19
LEGAL STANDARD

20
21

1.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

22

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint

23

if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

24

dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

25

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard

26

requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant

27

has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require

28

“heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to
2

1

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570.

2

In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the

3

court must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences

4

in the plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

However, the court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory,

6

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536

7

F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend.

9

The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no

10

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)

12

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to

13

amend is proper only if it is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

14

cured by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)(quoting Broughton

15

v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212

16

(9th Cir. 2012).

17
18

2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

19

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, plaintiffs must “plead a short and plain statement

20

of the elements of his or her claim.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.

21

2000). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Dismissal is

22

appropriate under Rule 8 where a complaint is “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy

23

and largely irrelevant.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996); see also

24

Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal of

25

complaint that was “verbose, confusing and conclusory”). “Something labeled a complaint but ...

26

prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs

27

are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry, 84

28

F.3d at 1180. Such a complaint only serves to “impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” Id.,
3

1

at 1179. In evaluating whether a complaint should be dismissed under Rule 8, the Ninth Circuit

2

has stated that dismissal does not turn upon whether “the complaint is wholly without merit.” Id.

3
DISCUSSION

4

Defendant City of Martinez argues that plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege specific facts

6

under Government Code sections 835.2, 840.4, 815.2(a), or 815.6 linking the alleged negligence

7

of City (and its employees) to plaintiff’s injury. While defendant concedes that plaintiff has

8

adequately alleged a cause of action under Government Code section 835 for dangerous condition

9

of public property, defendant argues that the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint all relate to the

10

dangerous condition of public property and not to negligence. Because defendant concedes a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

claim under 835 has been adequately alleged, the motion to dismiss regarding Section 835 is

12

DENIED. The court will address the remaining claims below.

13
14

1.

Government Code sections 835.2 and 840.4

15

Government Code sections 835.2 and 840.4 define when a public entity and public

16

employee have actual and constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Cal. Gov't Code § 835.2;

17

Cal. Gov't Code § 840.4. The two statutes do not provide a basis for liability. Accordingly, the

18

Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss without leave to amend as to Government Code sections

19

835.2 and 840.4.

20
21

2.

Government Code section 815.2(a)

22

Section 815.2(a) allows a public entity to be held vicariously liable for the acts or

23

omissions of its employees. Walker v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1393, 1397, 238 Cal.

24

Rptr. 146, 148 (Ct. App. 1987) (“A public entity is liable [under 815.2(A)] for injury proximately

25

caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his

26

employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of

27

action against that employee or his personal representative.”). “In order to state a claim on this

28

basis, Plaintiff must allege that the Individual Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable
4

1

care should have known, that other Individual Defendants and other employees were unfit and

2

posed a risk to Plaintiff of the sort of harm that occurred." Petersen v. Cty. of Stanislaus, No.

3

1:12-CV-00933-AWI, 2012 WL 4863800, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2012).
The Court finds that there are insufficient facts in the complaint to set forth the

4

requirements of Government Code section 815.2(a).

6

allegations that demonstrate plaintiff’s accident occurred because of negligent acts that were

7

administered by City employees. Plaintiff claims defendant’s employees failed to allocate and use

8

funds for safety improvement at the alleged accident site, and that defendant’s employees failed to

9

request and receive bids for improvement of the site in a timely fashion. Plaintiff also alleges

10

defendant’s employees failed to award bids and approve of construction activity once those funds

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

There have been no specific factual

were received. However, plaintiff does not allege specific facts or non-conclusory statements in

12

support of these allegations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss with leave to

13

amend as to Government Code section 815.2(a).

14
15
16

3.

Government Code section 815.6
Section 815.6 provides a private right of action against a public entity for breach of a
Section 815.6 has three discrete requirements which “must be met before

17

mandatory duty.

18

governmental entity liability may be imposed under Government Code section 815.6: (1) an

19

enactment must impose a mandatory duty; (2) the enactment must be meant to protect against the

20

kind of risk of injury suffered by the party asserting section 815.6 as a basis for liability; and (3)

21

breach of the mandatory duty must be a proximate cause of the injury suffered.” San Mateo Union

22

High Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of San Mateo, 213 Cal. App. 4th 418, 428, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 530, 538–39

23

(Ct. App. 2013). “The first requirement, which is ultimately dispositive here, is that the enactment

24

at issue be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive, in its directions to the public

25

entity; it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit, that a particular action be taken or

26

not taken.” San Mateo Union, 213 Cal. App. 4th at 428. “Whether a particular statute is intended

27

to impose a mandatory duty, rather than a mere obligation to perform a discretionary function, is a

28

question of statutory interpretation for the courts.” Id. at 428–29.
5

1

Defendant argues that plaintiff fails to identify a single constitutional provision, statute, or

2

charter that imposes a mandatory duty on the City. Dkt. No. 11. The Court agrees. The complaint

3

is devoid of factual allegations that clearly demonstrate which mandatory duty the City breached.

4

Plaintiff alleges defendant breached 835 but does not demonstrate this allegation passes the first

5

prong of the test for 815.6 liability. The complaint fails to plead the facts underlying the elements

6

of the Government Code section 815.6 claim. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss on this

7

claim is GRANTED with leave to amend.

8
CONCLUSION

9

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant’s motion to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims under Government Code sections 835.2 and 840.4 are dismissed with

12

prejudice; the claims under Government Code sections 815.2(a) and 815.6 are dismissed with

13

leave to amend; and the defendant’s motion under Government Code section 835 is denied.

14

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should clearly specify and allege each separate cause of action

15

against the City, and must be filed not later than May 18, 2018.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: May 2, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6