Buffin et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying as moot 63 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part 69 Motion for Leave to File surreply. The hearing set for May 10, 2016 is VACATED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RIANA BUFFIN, et al., 8 9 10 Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 15-cv-04959-YGR ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 69 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiffs,1 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this civil rights 14 action against the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) for claims arising from their post- 15 arrest detention at the City’s jail. Specifically, plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 16 against the City for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process 17 rights, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. 18 The named plaintiffs additionally seek monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs. 19 The Court previously granted the City’s motion for a more definite statement under Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).2 The Court found that plaintiffs’ original complaint was “in key 21 respects, fundamentally unclear, and the City [was] entitled to know what [p]laintiffs’ claim is 22 before it should be required to respond to it.” (Dkt. No. 55 at 8:9-10.) The Court identified 23 “analytical, legal, and factual gaps in plaintiffs’ allegations and requests for relief [that] render[ed] 24 25 26 27 28 1 All terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Court’s prior omnibus order. (Dkt. No. 55.) 2 In that order, the Court also held that: (i) the State was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, dismissing the State as a defendant; and (ii) abstention under the Younger doctrine was not warranted. (See Dkt. No. 55.) 1 the complaint unintelligible.” (Id.at 9:22-23.) Based thereon, plaintiffs were directed to file an 2 amended complaint to address the many issues identified by the Court. 3 Currently pending before the Court is the City’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second 4 amended complaint (“SAC”)3 under Rule 12(b)(6) or in the alternative for a more definite 5 statement under Rule 12(e). (Dkt. No. 63.) The City principally argues that the SAC fails to state a 6 claim against it as a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 as announced by the United 7 States Supreme Court in Monell v. Dep’t. of Social Serv’s of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 8 (1978). With respect to its alternative motion under Rule 12(e), the City argues that the SAC does 9 not cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior order and continues to be ambiguous as 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 to the basis for the legal claim and the relief plaintiffs seek. Plaintiffs oppose, contending that they have not only stated a claim under Monell, but that 12 the SAC also alleges a cognizable theory of liability against the City under Ex Parte Young, 209 13 U.S. 123 (1908). In reply, the City implicitly concedes that plaintiffs could potentially state 14 cognizable Section 1983 claims against it and/or individual actors for the alleged constitutional 15 violations at issue under Monell and Ex Parte Young, but argues that the SAC fails to do so. 16 Plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to file a surreply. (Dkt. No. 69.) The proposed 17 surreply in part requests leave to file a third amended complaint so that plaintiffs may cure the 18 issues raised by the City in its motion to dismiss and reply thereto. (See Dkt. No. 69-1.) Surreplies 19 are disfavored and the Court routinely rejects them. Given that plaintiffs’ surreply requests leave to 20 amend to cure valid concerns raised by the City, however, the Court will allow it in this narrow 21 instance to promote judicial efficiency. The Court need not waste resources addressing the City’s 22 arguments when the Court anticipates that the proposed amendments largely could resolve the 23 City’s concerns. The motion to file a surreply is therefore GRANTED IN PART to allow plaintiffs to 24 file only the portion of the surreply containing the request for leave to amend. 25 Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint no later than May 27, 2016. 26 27 28 3 By agreement of the parties, the City did not respond to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and plaintiffs instead filed the SAC. (See Dkt. No. 61.) 2 1 In light of the forthcoming filing of a third amended complaint, the City’s motion to dismiss 2 or for a more definite statement (Dkt. No. 63) is DENIED AS MOOT. The hearing set for May 10, 3 2016 is VACATED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 63, 69. 6 Date: May 6, 2016 7 8 9 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?