Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles
2:23-cv-07714
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Sascha B. Koch, a Los Angeles resident, sued the City of Los Angeles and several LAPD officers, alleging constitutional and state law violations related to a SWAT search at his business premises.
- On November 18, 2021, officers executed a search warrant for a neighboring unit (Unit 7), but allegedly entered, searched, and seized property from Koch's unit (Unit 6) without a warrant or consent, and arrested Koch.
- Officers allegedly secured a warrant for Unit 6 only hours after the initial search; Koch claims material omissions were made in the search application.
- The criminal case against Koch was ultimately dismissed, with the Superior Court finding officers entered Unit 6 illegally.
- Procedurally, several of Koch's claims were dismissed by stipulation or voluntarily, leaving claims under §1983, the Bane Act, and IIED.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, raising defenses under the Government Claims Act (GCA), state immunity statutes, and specific attacks on the Bane Act and negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| GCA Timeliness Defense | City's rejection did not comply with notice rules, waiving timeliness defense | Claim filed too late; state law claims barred | City's notice failed GCA requirements, waiving the timeliness defense on state law claims |
| Discretionary/State Law Immunity | Officers’ actions were knowing constitutional violations, not protected conduct | Immunities under Gov. Code §§ 820.2, 821.6, Civ. Code §47 preclude liability | Immunity defenses not established on pleadings for most claims; only bar claims based on statements in criminal proceedings |
| Bane Act (Miranda Predicate) | Bane Act claim not solely based on Miranda; also Fourth Amendment violations | No Bane Act claim for Miranda violations; only remedy is exclusion | Bane Act claim may proceed as to Fourth Amendment theory but not for Miranda violations |
| Negligence and False Arrest Claims | Voluntarily dismissed | Claims barred by timeliness and other reasons | Dismissed as voluntarily withdrawn |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility in dismissal motions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (framework for evaluating factual allegations versus legal conclusions)
- Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rule 12(c) analysis mirrors Rule 12(b)(6))
- Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018) (Bane Act requirements for intent and actionable conduct)
- Phillips v. Desert Hospital District, 49 Cal. 3d 699 (1989) (GCA notice and waiver provisions)
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal. 4th 972 (1995) (distinguishing discretionary immunity for policy vs. operational acts)
- Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2016) (Gov. Code §821.6 immunity applies only to malicious prosecution)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205 (1990) (California litigation privilege parameters)