Bryant et al v. Newsom et al
ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 18 Motion to Dismiss; granting 23 Motion to Dismiss. (vclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2020)
Case 3:20-cv-03243-VC Document 33 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANA BRYANT, et al.,
Case No. 20-cv-03243-VC
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
SUNDARI MASE, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 23
The motions to dismiss are granted because the complaint fails to state a plausible claim
for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Most importantly, the Bryants do not
plausibly allege that the measures taken in response to the Covid-19 pandemic “exceed”
the “broad” authority and “latitude” of county and local officials to answer the “dynamic and
fact-intensive” question of how to enact pandemic-related restrictions. South Bay United
Pentecostal Church v. Newson, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613-14 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring); see
Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Mass., 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905); Altman v. County of Santa Clara,
2020 WL 2850291, at *7-12 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020); Six v. Newson, 2020 WL 2896543, at *3-7
(C.D. Cal. May 22, 2020).
And more generally, the Bryants do not appear to have made any meaningful effort to
analyze which claims could conceivably be viable; instead, they have tossed in any remotely
relevant-sounding legal theory, perhaps with the expectation that the mess will be sorted out
later. To mention just one example, the complaint does not adequately allege the loss of a
possessory interest in property, as required to state a Fourth Amendment seizure claim. See
Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992). This is not how to file a lawsuit. The Bryants
and their counsel are on notice that inclusion of frivolous claims in the amended complaint could
Case 3:20-cv-03243-VC Document 33 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2
result in sanctions.
The same is true of the Bryants’ seemingly-random decision to drag so many individual
defendants into the lawsuit. Indeed, the Bryants appear to concede that an amended complaint is
required to clarify the roles of the various defendants, noting that because their “entire suit is
based on Monell liability, it may be more proper to view the remaining County Defendants as
simply being the County as the Defendant,” and that they will plead “in an amended complaint”
the facts necessary to show why the Santa Rosa Police Department is liable. Opp. to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss at 2, 13 (Dkt. No. 22).
The complaint is thus dismissed in its entirety with leave to amend. Any amended
complaint must be filed within 21 days of this order. Responses are due 21 days after the filing
of the amended complaint. The request for judicial notice is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2020
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?