Skrbic v. Fire Department
Civil Action No. 2021-2548
| D.D.C. | May 31, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ljubo Skrbic sued the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), alleging it improperly fined him for brush-clearance on a slope and selectively enforced rules (neighbor not fined); he referenced several federal statutes and sought release from fees and monetary losses.
- The court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failing to meet Rule 8(a)’s short-and-plain-statement requirement and noted likely problems with venue and personal jurisdiction.
- Skrbic moved to reconsider, offering what he called "new evidence" of selective fining; he did not identify statutory provisions that LAFD allegedly violated or plead specifics supporting federal claims.
- The court explained procedural- and substantive-due-process standards and required pleading showing of "grave unfairness" for substantive claims; it also summarized Monell municipal-liability requirements.
- The court denied reconsideration because the complaint and motion still failed to state a viable federal claim, could not be amended via a motion to reconsider, and did not establish proper venue or personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency (Rule 8) | Skrbic alleges wrongful fines and cites statutes and exhibits | Complaint fails to give fair notice or identify legal basis | Dismissal affirmed — complaint does not meet Rule 8(a) |
| Procedural & substantive due process | Deprived of property/rights without proper process; selective enforcement | No facts showing deprivation without process or "grave unfairness" | Claims not adequately pleaded; due process relief not shown |
| Equal protection / selective enforcement | New evidence: neighbor not fined; discriminatory enforcement | Cannot amend complaint by motion to reconsider; no facts showing municipal policy/animus | Motion to reconsider cannot serve as amendment; equal protection not established; Monell deficiency remains |
| Venue & personal jurisdiction | Case filed in D.C. | LAFD does not reside in D.C.; events and property located in LA; no forum contacts alleged | Venue and personal jurisdiction not shown; dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires factual matter showing entitlement to relief)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom as the moving force)
- English v. Dist. of Columbia, 717 F.3d 968 (procedural due process requirements are flexible beyond notice and an opportunity to be heard)
- Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072 (substantive due process requires "grave unfairness")
- Tri Cnty. Indus., Inc. v. District of Columbia, 104 F.3d 455 (standards for substantive due process showing deliberate flouting or animus)
- Crane v. N.Y. Zoological Soc., 894 F.2d 454 (plaintiff bears burden to plead facts supporting personal jurisdiction)
- Second Amendment Found. v. U.S. Conf. of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521 (specific forum contacts required to establish personal jurisdiction)