JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
The City of Sacramento assessed a fine against Plaintiff Howard Jones Investments, LLC ("Plaintiff Howard Jones") for failing to abate a public nuisance at its rental property. Because Howard Jones brought this action simultaneously with the continuing administrative proceeding, the Court abstains by staying those causes of action related to the nuisance penalty and its adjudication. The Court dismisses in part the remaining causes of action for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff Howard Jones rented its apartments at 1933 Los Robles Blvd. to (former) tenants Lowella Oldham, Ada Leeper, Dolly Leeper, Ericka Ward, and Alonzo Medley (collectively, "Tenant Plaintiffs"). First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶¶ 7-13. Sacramento police officers allegedly targeted Plaintiffs' property. They would frequently "raid[]" the building, entering the apartments without a warrant, handcuffing and pointing guns at the occupants, and conducting searches. FAC ¶¶ 20-21. In June 2014, Sergeant Matt Armstrong ("Defendant Armstrong") sent a letter to Plaintiff Howard Jones advising that there were "activities" at the property that "constitute[d] a public nuisance," including noise violations and "[t]he occurrence of criminal activity." FAC ¶ 23; Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice ("Plaintiff's RJN") Exh. A at 1. Over the next few months, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Armstrong pressured Howard Jones to evict the tenants as a means of abating the nuisance. FAC ¶¶ 24-30. Howard Jones reached "agreements with the tenants to vacate the property," but Defendant Armstrong nonetheless "issued an Administrative Penalty" for failing to abate the nuisance. FAC ¶ 31. An administrative hearing and appeal followed. FAC ¶¶ 37-40. When the appeal was denied, Plaintiff brought a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking judicial review of the administrative decision.
Meanwhile, Plaintiff Howard Jones simultaneously brought this action in federal court against the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department, and Sacramento Police Officers Matt Armstrong, Michael Benner, and Sam Somers Jr. (collectively, "Defendants") (Docs. ##1, 2). The complaint originally sought damages as well as a writ of mandamus.
The Court granted Defendants' first motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend (Doc. #23). A First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was filed, which added the Tenant Plaintiffs for the first time and sought only damages (Doc. #27). The FAC alleges violations of the tenants' Fourth Amendment Rights, and that the fine and forced evictions comprised unconstitutional takings, deprivations of due process, and tortious interference with Plaintiffs' lease contracts. Defendants now move to dismiss the FAC (Doc. #36). Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Doc. #39).
Both parties have filed requests for judicial notice (Docs. ##36-2, 39-2). Defendants seek judicial notice of Howard Jones's Superior Court complaint, and Plaintiffs request notice of the "Public Hearing Case File Outline." Neither party objects to or questions the authenticity of the documents provided. The Court therefore takes judicial notice of these documents, which are in the public record and not subject to reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 201;
Defendants argue that the Court should abstain pursuant to
"[A]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule."
Here, the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Police Department brought a nuisance proceeding against Plaintiff Howard Jones because of alleged "criminal activity." FAC ¶¶ 31-38. This state proceeding is not itself criminal and does not affect California's "judicial functions." But such a nuisance action initiated by the government is sufficiently "akin to [a] criminal prosecution" to invoke
Turning to the other threshold requirements, all three are met here. First, the proceeding is on-going, because after the administrative hearing and appeal, Howard Jones filed a writ for state-court judicial review.
As to the final two inquiries, Plaintiffs' operative complaint seeks only damages, but such relief would have the "practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings." Awarding damages "would [] cast aspersion on the competence of the[] state courts to adjudicate [P]laintiff[s'] federal claims."
Defendants contend that dismissal is the proper application of
The Court accordingly stays the third through sixth causes of action, which relate to the ongoing state proceedings about the nuisance penalty. Given this conclusion, the Court does not reach the parties' other arguments as to the merits of these causes of action.
However, there remain two causes of action that are independent of the state proceedings: the first and second causes of action allege that Sacramento police officers entered and searched the tenants' apartments in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Such allegations are unrelated to the nuisance proceedings, so the Court will not stay the case with regard to those causes of action.
Plaintiffs bring two causes of actions for "unlawful entry" and "unlawful search[es]" of Tenant Plaintiffs' apartments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment.
Defendants argue that the claims against Defendant Armstrong cannot stand because they are "[v]ague and conclusory." Mot. at 5. The Court disagrees, because the FAC states that Sacramento police officers, including Defendant Armstrong himself, entered and searched the apartments without a warrant, consent, or reason to suspect wrongdoing. FAC ¶¶ 20-21, 75-76, 81. Taking these allegations as true, they sufficiently allege a Fourth Amendment violation.
The Court also rejects Defendants' argument that "Armstrong was not personally involved in warrantless entries or searches of tenants' residents [sic]" and that "`searches conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose . . . may be permissible . . . though not supported by a showing of probable cause.'" Mot. at 5-6; Reply at 2 (citation omitted). Such analyses are fraught with factual disputes that the Court cannot resolve on a motion to dismiss. The allegations in the first and second claims against Defendant Armstrong are sufficient for this stage of the proceedings and will not be dismissed.
Defendants move to dismiss the claims against City of Sacramento because Plaintiffs did not allege a policy, custom, or practice to support municipality liability under
For the reasons set forth above, the Court STAYS this action as to the third through sixth causes of action. All claims asserted by Plaintiff Howard Jones are therefore stayed pending resolution of the state proceeding. As to the tenants, the Court DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the first and second causes of action against Defendant City of Sacramento and DENIES the motion to dismiss those two claims against Defendant Armstrong. The Tenant Plaintiffs' amended complaint, if any, must be filed within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. Defendants' responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days thereafter.
Based on these rulings, Plaintiffs' motion to for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. #37) is denied as moot. That is, Howard Jones's claims are now stayed and the Tenant Plaintiffs have been given the opportunity to amend their remaining claims. The hearing on May 3, 2016 is vacated.
As a final matter, Plaintiffs' opposition (Doc. #39) failed to comply with this Court's order regarding page limits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.