Emberton v. San Francisco City Government, 3:22-cv-05440

Background

Plaintiff Mihal Emberton, a San Francisco homeowner, made front-yard improvements (arbor, gas fire table) and performed a like-for-like 4-foot fence repair; City agencies issued a 2017 Notice of Violation and later Notices of Enforcement and permit denials relating to the fence and arbor.
Emberton filed administrative proceedings (DBI Notice of Director’s Hearing dated Feb. 8, 2023; hearing Mar. 7, 2023) and an Order of Abatement was entered April 12, 2023; enforcement/appeals remain ongoing.
Emberton sued the City in state court alleging numerous claims (including § 1983 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and a RICO claim); the case was removed to federal court and Emberton filed a lengthy Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
The City moved to dismiss the SAC under Rule 12(b)(6) and sought judicial notice of administrative documents; Emberton separately moved to disqualify the City Attorney’s Office.
The magistrate judge denied the motion to disqualify, dismissed Emberton’s federal constitutional claims without prejudice under Younger abstention, dismissed the RICO claim with prejudice (futility/Rule 12(b)(6)), and granted leave to amend solely to reassert state-law claims (remand contemplated).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disqualification of City Attorney's Office	Emberton: City Attorney has conflict due to role in Code Enforcement and prior complaints, so must be disqualified.	City: Emberton lacks standing, provided no evidence of confidential relationship, delay and prejudice.	Denied — no showing of confidential/fiduciary relationship or disqualifying ethical breach; heavy burden unmet.
Younger abstention re: § 1983 constitutional claims	Emberton: federal forum appropriate; previous NOVs did not amount to formal state proceeding.	City: administrative enforcement (hearing, abatement order) is ongoing quasi-criminal/state interest — federal court should abstain.	Granted dismissal without prejudice — Younger applies because administrative hearing and abatement are ongoing, implicate important state interests, and federal relief would enjoin state process.
RICO claim sufficiency	Emberton: alleges pattern of governmental misconduct supporting RICO.	City: RICO requires specified predicate acts and injury to business/property; civil-rights allegations are not RICO predicates; government cannot form requisite malicious intent.	Dismissed with prejudice — RICO elements not pled and amendment futile (government entities cannot form requisite RICO intent).
State-law claims / supplemental jurisdiction	Emberton: did not include state claims in SAC or seeks to defer federal dismissal on some claims.	City: federal claims dismissed; comity favors state resolution of local land-use disputes.	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction at this time, grants leave to amend solely to plead state-law claims and contemplates remand.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (defining Younger categories)
ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (Younger threshold for civil enforcement actions)
Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. Cty. of Alameda, 953 F.3d 655 (nuisance/abatement as quasi‑criminal Younger context)
Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037 (distinguishing damages claims from broader equitable relief that would enjoin state proceedings)
Abcarian v. Levine, 972 F.3d 1019 (civil RICO elements)
Bowen v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800 (civil‑rights violations are not RICO predicate acts)
Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296 (government entities cannot form the malicious intent required for RICO)
Beltran v. State of Cal., 871 F.2d 777 (Younger requires dismissal when abstention is appropriate)