Mendoza et al v. Bruzeau et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Party Sonia Alvarez and Barbara Kirwin dismissed. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARIA MENDOZA ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-4361

KELLY BRUZEAU ET AL.

SECTION A(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec. Doc. 13) filed
by Defendants Sonia Alvarez and Barbara Kirwin. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The motion, set
for submission on January 13, 2016, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. For
the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
I.

Background

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Alvarez and Kirwin arise out of a “minor traffic
confrontation.” (Rec. Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 12). While Plaintiff Angelica Sotomayor, was backing out
of her driveway, Defendant Alvarez was driving her vehicle “at a high rate of speed” down
Sotomayor’s street. (Id.) The complaint is unclear on whether the vehicles collided. The complaint
alleges that Alvarez then grabbed Sotomayor’s arm and told her that she knew where Sotomayor
lived and would find out who she was. (Id.) Alvarez then parked her car in a way that blocked
Sotomayor’s car from leaving the neighborhood. (Id.)
Deputy Kelly Bruzeau arrived on the scene. (Id.) According to the complaint, Bruzeau was
an acquaintance of Alvarez and Kirwin, who allegedly was a passenger in the car with Alvarez.
(Id.) Bruzeau tried to put Sotomayor in handcuffs, and Plaintiff Maria Mendoza, Sotomayor’s
daughter, came out of the house. (Id. at ¶ 14). She began recording the incident on her phone. (Id.)

1

Allegedly, upon realizing Mendoza was recording, Bruzeau put Mendoza in a headlock, threw her
against a car, and took the phone. (Id. at ¶ 16). Sotomayor yelled to Bruzeau that Mendoza was in
a fragile state due to her pregnancy. (Id. at ¶ 17). Allegedly, Bruzeau then violently threw Mendoza
into a police car. (Id. at ¶ 18).
Sotomayor and Mendoza were taken to Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, where they
were booked and placed in a cell. (Id. at ¶ 19). Mendoza told the officers she was pregnant and
feeling pain in her abdomen. (Id.). Mendoza asked for medical treatment repeatedly. (Id. at ¶ 2021). The officers placed her in a separate holding cell. (Id.) Mendoza continued telling officers and
nurses she felt pain in her abdomen, and they allegedly told her to pretend to be okay so that she
would be released more quickly. (Id.)
At 3 a.m., Mendoza began banging on the walls of her cell and screaming for medical
attention. (Id. at ¶ 22). Deputy Nathaniel Cooper approached the cell and then called for medical
personnel twice. (Id.). No one came, so he walked to the medical office to find a nurse. (Id.).
Allegedly, a nurse went to Mendoza’s cell and said she did not see anything wrong. (Id.). Shortly
after this, Mendoza delivered a stillborn fetus in her cell. (Id.). Mendoza was then transported by
Gretna EMS to West Jefferson Medical Center. (Id. at ¶ 25).
Plaintiffs assert a number of claims against Defendants. (Rec. Doc. 1). Plaintiffs initially
asserted constitutional violations under Section 1983 against all Defendants. (Id.) In the instant
motion, however, Movants seek dismissal of all federal claims against them as Movants are private
citizens and Plaintiffs made no allegations that they were acting under color of state law. (Rec.
Doc. 13-1). Plaintiffs responded and said that any federal claims against Movants were
inadvertently asserted. (Rec. Doc. 14). Thus, the only claims at issue against Movants are state law
claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, and filing false affidavits. (Rec. Doc. 1, Compl.

2

¶ 76-89). Movants argue that these claims should be dismissed, pointing out that the Court does
not have original jurisdiction over any claims raised against these private citizens, and further, that
the claims against Movants do not derive from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as
the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. (Rec. Doc. 13-1).
II.

Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over any state law
claims that do not independently satisfy original jurisdiction, if the state law claims are part of the
same case or controversy as a federal claim over which the court has original jurisdiction. See
Energy Management Services, LLC v. City of Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2014). The
Supreme Court has held that “federal-question jurisdiction over a claim may authorize a federal
court to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims that may be viewed as part of the same case
because they ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’ as the federal claim.”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 351 (2006) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,
383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)).
The Court agrees with Movants that Plaintiffs’ allegations derive from two separate and
distinct sets of operative facts. As the Court understands them, Plaintiffs’ claims against Movants
derive from an altercation between Plaintiffs and Movants that occurred before the other
Defendants arrived at the scene. Plaintiffs’ claims against the other Defendants derive from the
arrest and detention of Plaintiffs by these Defendants, which did not involve Movants. Resolving
the state law claims against Movants will require discovery unrelated to the discovery required to
assess the federal § 1983 and related state law claims against the other Defendants.
Accordingly and for the foregoing reasons;

3

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec. Doc.
13) filed by Defendants Sonia Alvarez and Barbara Kirwin is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims
against Alvarez and Kirwin are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
January 27, 2016

__________________________________
JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4