390 F. Supp. 3d 1189
E.D. Cal.2019Background
- On August 18, 2018, a Ceres police officer shot and killed 15‑year‑old Carmen Mendez while Carmen (allegedly unarmed) fled on foot after a vehicle pursuit; Plaintiffs are Carmen's father, two brothers, aunt, grandmother, and grandfather (and the father sued on behalf of the estate).
- Plaintiffs sued the City of Ceres, Ceres Police Department, Chief Brent Smith, and Does 1–50 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Constitution art. I § 13, the Bane Act, and state tort theories.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), raising nine defects: pleading sufficiency (Twombly/Iqbal), failure to join Carmen’s mother, duplicative and improper defendants, insufficient Monell allegations, improper familial‑association claims, state‑constitutional damages viability, Bane Act standing, and redundant Bane Act language.
- The court denied a stay to join Carmen’s mother but ordered sua sponte that she (Stephanie Beidleman) be joined as a plaintiff for claims in which she has an interest; defendants had waived a late Rule 19 objection as to wrongful‑death particulars but the court found joinder necessary for judicial‑economy and possible preclusion concerns.
- The court held that the Ceres Police Department may be sued separately from the City under California law and Ninth Circuit precedent and refused to dismiss it as duplicative.
- The court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Monell municipal‑liability claim (failure to train/supervise/discipline) for lack of sufficiently pled pattern/notice and lack of facts about municipal inaction, but allowed other state constitutional and Bane Act theories to proceed in part, and dismissed the Bane Act familial‑association theory with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Monell allegations (failure to train/supervise/discipline) | Plaintiffs allege a pattern of prior incidents/settlements and claim deliberate indifference; relaxed pleading applies pre‑discovery | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory, aged, sporadic, and fail Twombly/Iqbal; no plausible pattern/notice | Monell claim dismissed as to City for failure to plead facts showing a sufficiently similar, timely pattern and municipal inaction (GRANTED) |
| Joinder of decedent’s mother under Rule 19 | Plaintiffs argued mother not necessary and can later claim from estate; defendants raised joinder late | Defendants said mother is a successor‑in‑interest and necessary; sought stay to join | Court denied stay, but sua sponte ordered joinder of mother as plaintiff for claims where she has an interest (motion to stay DENIED; joinder ORDERED) |
| Naming Ceres Police Department as defendant | Plaintiffs said department is suable under California law | Defendants argued PD is duplicative of City and not a proper § 1983 defendant | Court held PD may be sued separately under California law and Ninth Circuit precedent; motion to dismiss PD DENIED |
| Individual liability of Chief Brent Smith under § 1983 | Plaintiffs rely on policymaker/supervisory theories and list prior incidents to show acquiescence | Defendants say allegations target official capacity or are conclusory; no personal involvement or causal connection | Court dismissed Smith from the § 1983 excessive‑force claim for failure to plead personal involvement/causal connection (GRANTED with leave to amend); retained Smith on several state law claims (DENIED as to those) |
| Familial‑association claims (First and Fourteenth Amend.) | Plaintiffs allege loss of companionship/association by multiple relatives and assert cohabitation | Defendants argue claims are duplicative, lack standing for some relatives, and are conclusory | Court found allegations conclusory (mirroring Mann) and dismissed these claims with leave to amend (GRANTED) |
| Bane Act standing for relatives | Plaintiffs seek Bane Act recovery both for estate (force) and for relatives (familial loss) | Defendants: Bane Act provides a personal cause of action for the victim only, not secondary relatives | Court held Bane Act recovery is limited to the victim/estate; familial‑association portion dismissed with prejudice (GRANTED) |
| State constitutional claim (Cal. Const. art I § 13) — damages viability | Plaintiffs invoked Katzberg framework and asked court to permit damages remedy | Defendants argued § 13 does not support monetary damages | Court declined to resolve novel issue in defendants' favor because defendants failed to develop Katzberg analysis; claim not dismissed (DENIED) |
| Motion to strike duplicative Bane Act language | Defendants sought to strike redundant language from Bane Act claim | Plaintiffs argued motion untimely and language clarifying theories is permissible | Court denied the motion to strike as untimely and unnecessary (DENIED) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state plausible entitlement to relief)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing violation)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (municipal deliberate‑indifference/notice requirement)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (Ninth Circuit pleading standard for Monell and supervisory liability)
- Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (supervisory liability requires causal connection/personal involvement)
- Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (Bane Act requires specific intent; personal‑victim focus)