Lasher et al v. City of Santa Clara

Filing 25

ORDER re 14 Denying as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant shall file its answer or motion to dismiss the amended complaint within twenty-one days of this Order. The April 28, 2011 motion hearing is vacated. The April 28, 2011 case management conference is continued to July 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Koh on 4/25/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

KULWANT LASHER, USA EXPRESS CAB
LLC,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. #14. Instead of filing an

17

opposition to that motion, however, Plaintiffs filed an untimely Amended Complaint. See Dkt.

18

#21. The Court deems Defendant’s motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument and

19

vacates the April 28, 2011 motion hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The April 28, 2011 case

20

management conference is continued to Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. For the following

21

reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot, and accepts the filing of

22

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.

23

I. BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiff Kulwant Lasher, at the time proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on behalf of

25

himself and his company USA Express Cab LLC on September 16, 2010. See Compl. [dkt. #1]. In

26

that initial complaint, Plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City of Santa

27

Clara “unlawfully revoked, canceled their taxicab licenses, and permits on September 16, 2008.”

28

Id. at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs also generally alleged that “[b]y reason of the defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs
1
Case No.: 10-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

1

were deprived of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them.” Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs,

2

however, did not identify a particular “right,” “privilege,” or “immunity’ that was deprived.

3

On March 1, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a

4

claim, and noticed that motion for a hearing date of April 28, 2011. Defendants argued that: (1)

5

Plaintiffs did not identify a specific basis for their §1983 claim; (2) Plaintiffs’ complaint is barred

6

by his felony bribery conviction pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey,

7

512 U.S. 477 (1994)1; and (3) Plaintiff USA Express Cab LLC should be dismissed because

8

business entities may not proceed without representation. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2-4.

9

Pursuant to the District’s Civil Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was due on

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

April 7, 2011 (three weeks prior to the motion hearing date). See Civ. L.R. 7-3. Instead of filing

11

an opposition, however, Plaintiffs, now acting via counsel, filed a first amended complaint

12

(“FAC”) on April 7, 2011. See Dkt. #21. In the FAC, Plaintiffs do identify a specific basis for

13

their §1983 claim. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated their right to due process of

14

law by permanently revoking Plaintiffs’ permit to operate the taxicab business without inspecting

15

Plaintiffs’ cabs. FAC ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiffs further allege that their constitutional right to due process

16

of law was violated as a result of the official customs, practices, and policies of Defendant. Id.

17

Also on April 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a “Response” to the motion to dismiss, stating that the filing

18

of the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) renders the motion to dismiss moot.

19

See Dkt. 22.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that: “in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing
that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under
§ 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. But if the district court
determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any
outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the
absence of some other bar to the suit.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (bolded
for emphasis).
2
Case No.: 10-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

1
2

II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file an amended

3

complaint once without leave of the court if it is filed within twenty-one days of service of a Rule

4

12(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). While Rule 15(a) provides for a twenty-one day deadline,

5

Rule 15(b) states: “The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so

6

requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b).

7

Here, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint was filed on March 1, 2011, but

8

Plaintiffs did not file the FAC until April 7, 2011, which is beyond the twenty-one day deadline of

9

Rule 15(a). Despite the untimely filing of the FAC, the Court will accept the FAC in light of the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Rule 15(b)’s guidance to freely give leave when justice so requires and in light of Plaintiffs’ recent

11

retention of counsel. See Shirley v. Wachovia Mortg. FSB, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133248, *7

12

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010) (“Despite the untimely filing of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the Court

13

will accept its filing for practical reasons.”). Because the FAC supersedes the original complaint,

14

the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot.2

15
16

The parties, now both represented by counsel, should note that the Court will not tolerate
future missed deadlines or violations of court rules.

17
18

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant City of Santa Clara’s motion to

19

dismiss the original complaint as moot. Plaintiffs’ FAC, filed on April 7, 2011, supersedes the

20

original complaint. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Defendant shall either file its

21

answer or a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The April

22

28, 2011 motion hearing is VACATED. The April 28, 2011 case management conference is

23

continued to Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. In the event Defendant files a motion to

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court is aware that, in its Reply, Defendant argued that even if the FAC does correct
some deficiencies of the original complaint, “Plaintiffs are unable to side-step the substantive bar
to this lawsuit by virtue of Heck v. Humphrey.” See Def.’s Reply at 1. It is not clear to the Court
at this point, however, exactly how a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs “would necessarily imply the
invalidity” of Plaintiff Lasher’s bribery conviction. In light of the acceptance of the FAC (which
appears to be premised upon a procedural due process claim), Defendants may raise and clarify the
Heck bar argument, and any other argument for dismissal, with respect to the now operative FAC.
3
Case No.: 10-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

1

dismiss the FAC, the Court will move the case management conference to the same date as the

2

motion hearing.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: April 25, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 10-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT