Estate of Jimmy Ray Hatfield et al v. County of Lake et al

Filing 185

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 168 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

R.H., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

No. C 11-2396 PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13

Defendant Patricia Trujillo’s1 motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ third amended complaint

14

came on for hearing on November 7, 2012 before this court. Plaintiffs appeared through

15

their counsel, Michael Green. Defendant Trujillo appeared through her counsel, Sonja

16

Dahl. Counsel for Lake County, Jaime Bodiford, also attended the hearing. Having read all

17

the papers and carefully considered the relevant legal authority, the court hereby DENIES

18

defendant’s motion for the reasons stated at the hearing, and as follows.

19

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ first cause of action, brought under 42 U.S.C.

20

§ 1983, and plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action, for wrongful death due to medical negligence.

21

As to the section 1983 claim, defendant argues that there was no special relationship

22

created between her and the decedent, and that she did not affirmatively act to place the

23

decedent in danger. Thus, in defendant’s view, there can be no constitutional violation. As

24

to the medical negligence claim, defendant argues that there was no doctor-patient (or

25

equivalent) relationship created, and thus she had no duty of care with respect to the

26

decedent.

27
28

1

The motion was also filed by then-defendant Kristy Kelly, but the parties have since
stipulated to dismiss all claims against Ms. Kelly. See Dkt. 172.

1

The court finds that, based on the face of the complaint, plaintiffs have adequately

2

alleged the elements of a constitutional violation, and have also adequately alleged that

3

defendant had a duty of care with respect to the decedent. Defendant may still be able to

4

rebut those allegations, but must wait until the summary judgment stage to do so.

5

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated: November 8, 2012
9

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2