359 F. Supp. 3d 801
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ramachandran alleges municipal and individual defendants in Los Altos discriminated against him (race/ethnicity), favored neighbors (the Jacobses), and sought post hoc code changes to justify prior decisions. Complaints and a government-claim notice were submitted in Aug. and Oct. 2017.
- Ramachandran filed suit Feb. 25, 2018 and later an amended complaint (FAC) adding several city employees and police officers; some new defendants were served months later.
- Defendants moved: to strike redundant language in the FAC, to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6)/12(c), for judicial notice of the GTCA notices, and an anti-SLAPP strike of state-law claims.
- The court took judicial notice of the Aug. 1 complaint form and Oct. 12 GTCA letter and struck the unopposed redundant federal-language in Claim 3.
- The court dismissed or limited multiple claims: granted dismissal of certain municipal and state-law claims for pleading or notice defects, dismissed some claims as time-barred unless plaintiff can allege continuing violations, and denied the anti-SLAPP motion without prejudice because leave to amend was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike redundant federal language in FAC | No opposition; remove duplicative phrasing | Move to strike redundant/impertinent text under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) | Court granted motion and struck the specified federal wording |
| §1983 claims statute of limitations for Anderson, Jones, Mordo | Alleged continuing violation tolls the 2-year limitation | Alleged acts occurred >2 years before filing; time-barred absent systemic policy allegations | Dismissal of time-barred portions; leave to amend to plead continuing violations granted |
| Monell liability (Los Altos) and final policymaker allegations | City liable via Ballard (alleged final policymaker) and departmental practice | City argues plaintiff fails to plead an official policy/custom causally linked to violations (no respondeat superior) | Claims against Los Altos dismissed for failure to plead municipal policy or final policymaker facts; leave to amend granted |
| GTCA claim-presentation adequacy for IIED (Claim 4) | Notices (Aug.1, Oct.12) are sufficient general notice of discrimination and emotional distress | Notices too vague; did not describe factual bases for IIED so city lacked opportunity to investigate; failure is fatal | IIED claim dismissed for inadequate GTCA notice; leave to amend to allege compliance or excuse granted |
| Anti-SLAPP motion to strike state-law claims (Claims 3 & 4) | Plaintiff argues claims are non-frivolous; seeks to amend | Defendants argue claims arise from petition/speech and should be struck and fees awarded | Court denied anti-SLAPP without prejudice because dismissal was with leave to amend; defendants may renew after amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard for Rule 12(f) immaterial or impertinent matter)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility and factual allegations required to survive motion to dismiss)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (requires action pursuant to official municipal policy for §1983 municipal liability)
- Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of California, 29 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2002) (holding no private damages action for liberty interest under Cal. Const. art. I, § 7)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts outside limitations period are not actionable as continuing violations)