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)

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