Weaver v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 95

ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 TO PROCEED AGAINST CHIEF KEVIN R. KYLE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY re 94 Letter Brief filed by City of Santa Clara, Kevin R. Kyle, 92 Objection filed by James Weaver. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on June 21, 2014. (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2014)

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

JAMES WEAVER,

11
v.

12
13

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-06334-PSG
ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM UNDER
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 TO
PROCEED AGAINST CHIEF KEVIN
R. KYLE IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY

At Thursday’s final status conference, it became clear that there was a disagreement as to
whether or not the Bane Act claim in this case has survived for a jury to consider. Defendants the
City of Santa Clara and Chief of Police Kevin R. Kyle argue that it has not, as the only defendant
against whom it is plead is Chief Kyle, and Chief Kyle could not have committed the acts in

20

question as he was not present at the incident. Plaintiff James Weaver, however, argues that it

21

should survive, if not in its current form than under an amended theory. Having reviewed the

22

papers submitted by the parties and performed extensive research of its own, the court now holds

23

that Weaver’s Bane Act claim may proceed against Chief Kyle in his official capacity.

24
25
26
27
28

Weaver offers three ways that the Bane Act claim may proceed. First, he again begs leave
of the court to amend his complaint to replace the various “Doe” defendants with named officers.1
1

See Docket No. 92 at 2.
1

Case No. 5:12-cv-06334-PSG
ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 TO PROCEED
AGAINST CHIEF KEVIN R. KYLE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

1
2

The court considered and rejected this argument at the summary judgment phase in January,2 and
there is no compelling reason to revisit that holding now.
Next, Weaver asks for leave to amend the Bane Act claim to include the City of Santa

3
4
5
6

Clara, which is already a party to other claims in this suit.3 However, under Rule 16 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may not grant leave to amend outside the bounds of the
scheduling order except in cases of “manifest injustice” and even then, only when the moving party

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

has demonstrated diligence and “good cause.” Here, Weaver has offered no explanation other than
carelessness for his failure to amend the complaint or name the city earlier, and “carelessness is not
compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.”4

11

Finally, Weaver argues that the claim should be allowed to proceed under a respondeat

12

superior theory against Chief of Police Kevin R. Kyle, who has been named in the complaint and

13

the cause of action since it was filed.5 This argument has merit. The Supreme Court has long held

14
15
16

that “state officers sued for damages in their official capacity . . . assume the identity of the
government that employs them.”6 “As such, [a suit against an official sued in his official capacity]

17

is no different from a suit against the State itself.”7 In the context of a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983, neither a municipality nor an officer sued in his official capacity may be held liable for the

19

actions of its employees unless it perpetuated a policy, practice, or custom that led to the actions.8

20
21

2

See Docket No. 65 at 5.

22

3

See Docket No. 92 at 4.

23

4

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

24

5

See Docket No. 92 at 4.

25

6

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991).

26

7

Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

27

8

See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. Of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).

28

2

Case No. 5:12-cv-06334-PSG
ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 TO PROCEED
AGAINST CHIEF KEVIN R. KYLE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

1

However, the Bane Act allows a plaintiff to hold the government accountable based on pure

2

respondeat superior liability,9 and under California law, “a plaintiff seeking to hold an employer

3

liable for injuries caused by employees acting within the scope of their employment is not required

4

to name or join the employees as defendants.”10 There is no dispute that the officers involved in

5
6

the incident at issue were the employees of the City of Santa Clara. Thus, a reasonable jury could
hold Chief Kyle, standing in for the City of Santa Clara, responsible for the unnamed officers’

7
8
9

violations of the Bane Act, so long as Weaver produces evidence to prove up those violations at
trial. The Bane Act claim therefore may be presented to the jury at trial on Monday.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: June 21, 2014
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

9

27

10

28

See Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002).
Perez v. City of Huntington Park, 7 Cal.App.4th 817, 820 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 1992).
3

Case No. 5:12-cv-06334-PSG
ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 TO PROCEED
AGAINST CHIEF KEVIN R. KYLE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY