Sandoval et al v. City of Watsonville

Filing 53

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 47 Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2014)

1

*E-Filed: April 3, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

MARIA SANDOVAL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

12
v.
13

CITY OF WATSONVILLE, ET AL.,

No. C13-01909
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
MORALES’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14
15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16

[Re: Docket No. 47]

Plaintiffs Maria and Omar Sandoval sue the City of Watsonville, Edward Delfin, and Roy

17

Morales pursuant to § 1983 for alleged deprivations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and

18

related state law claims. Morales moves to dismiss two of the state law claims because Plaintiffs

19

failed to administratively exhaust their remedies as required by the California Tort Claims Act

20

(CTCA).1 Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition. The matter is deemed suitable for

21

determination without oral argument, and the hearing set for April 8, 2014, is vacated. See Civil

22

L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the moving papers and non-opposition, the motion is GRANTED.

23

Pursuant to the CTCA, no suit for damages may be brought against a public entity or

24

employee thereof acting within the scope of their employment until a written claim has been

25

presented to the local entity and acted upon. See Cal. Govt. Code §§ 945.4, 950.2. A claim relating

26
27
28

1

Morales moves to dismiss the sixth claim for violation of the Bane Act and twelfth claim for
negligence. He asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel previously agreed to voluntarily dismiss Plaintiffs’
other state law claims (seven through eleven), which is why they are not addressed in the motion.
However, no such voluntary dismissal has yet been filed with the Court.

1

to a cause of action for personal injury shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual

2

of the cause of action. Cal. Govt. Code § 911.2(a).
At the time of the alleged incident, March 2012, Morales was employed by the Santa Cruz

3
4

County Sheriff’s Office. However, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint misidentifies Morales as

5

a Police Officer for the City of Watsonville, and it alleges that Plaintiffs presented a claim only to

6

the City of Watsonville. Morales asserts that Plaintiffs in fact did not present a claim to the County

7

of Santa Cruz pursuant to the CTCA and that the time for them to do so has run. Accordingly,

8

Plaintiffs’ state law claims are barred and should be dismissed without leave to amend. Particularly

9

in view of Plaintiffs’ non-opposition, the Court agrees.
Accordingly, Morales’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ sixth and twelfth claims for relief

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

are dismissed as against Morales without leave to amend.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: April 3, 2014

14

HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

26
27
28

In their statement of non-opposition, Plaintiffs request leave to file a third amended complaint to
cure defects not mentioned in Morales’ motion by properly identifying Morales while making no
substantive changes. While the Court is generally amendable to the proposed amendment,
Plaintiffs’ statement of non-opposition was not the appropriate vehicle for such a request because it
specifically was not responsive to issues raised by the motion. Instead, Plaintiff should file a
separate motion for leave to amend or, preferably, file an amended complaint pursuant to stipulation
of all parties.
2

1

C13-01909 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

DeWitt Marcellus Lacy [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
4
5

John L. Burris [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Jordan Sheinbaum [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

6
Reed William Gallogly

[e-mail]

7
Thomas Neal Griffin

[e-mail], [e-mail]

8
9

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3