Anderson v. Cnty. of Fresno
| Decision Date | 03 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-01134-ADA-SAB |
| Parties | DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Currently before the Court are Defendants' various motions to strike and dismiss that were referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. In consideration of the moving, opposition and reply briefs, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, as well as the arguments presented at oral argument the Court issues the following findings and recommendations recommending denying the County Defendants' motion to strike, granting in part and denying in part the Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying in part the CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss, granting Defendant HIG's motion to dismiss, denying HIG's motion to strike, and granting Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint.
On July 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Doris Anderson, individually and as the successor in interest for the decedent Jah-Quavious Anderson, and James Jenkins, initiated this action. (ECF No. 1.) The action was filed against the County of Fresno (“County”), California Forensic Medical Group, (“CFMG”), HIG Capital LLC (“HIG”), Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner Margaret Mims (“Mims”), and Fresno Director of Public Health David Pomaville (“Pomaville”). (Id.) On October 4, 2021, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court extended the time for all Defendants to file a responsive pleading; tolled the statute of limitations with respect to claims against Defendant Pomaville until the close of fact discovery in exchange for dismissal of Defendant Pomaville without prejudice; and continued the scheduling conference. (ECF No. 13.) On October 12, 2021, the Court dismissed Defendant Pomaville pursuant to a notice of dismissal. (ECF No. 15.)
On November 2, 2021, the Court again continued the deadline to file responsive pleadings pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (ECF No. 19.) On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the “FAC”), the operative complaint in this action. (ECF No. 20.) The FAC added Defendants Jami Carter (“Carter”), Chris Garcia (“C. Garcia”), Frank Ponce (“Ponce”), Moises Franco (“Franco”), Meng Cha (“Cha”), Linda Thao (“Thao”), Ka Her (“Her”), Anthony Sanchez (“A. Sanchez”), Rachel LeBoeuf (“LeBoeuf”), David Ventura (“Ventura”), Dillon Owens (“Owens”), Jose Alanis (“Alanis”), Jonathan Sanchez (“J. Sanchez”), Genevieve Garcia (“G. Garcia”), and Maria Guerrero (“Guerrero”). Summons were issued on December 6, 2021. (ECF No. 22.) On December 22, 2021, the Court granted a stipulated request extending the time for Defendants CFMG and HIG to respond to the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.)
On December 22, 2021, Defendants County and Mims (collectively the “County Defendants”) filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' FAC. (County Defs.' Mot. Strike (“Mot. Strike”), ECF No. 25.)[1] Additionally on this same date, the County Defendants filed an answer. (ECF No. 26.) On January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to strike. (Pls.' Opp'n Mot. Strike (“Opp'n Strike”), ECF No. 30.) On January 19, 2022, the Court granted a stipulated request to extend the time for CFMG and HIG to respond to the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.) On January 19, 2022, waivers of service were returned executed for G. Garcia, Guerrero, A. Sanchez, C. Garcia, Ventura, Owens, Ponce, Carter, J. Sanchez, Alanis, Her, Thao, Cha, Franco, and LeBoeuf. (ECF Nos. 32-46.) On January 25, 2022, the County Defendants filed a reply to the opposition to the motion to strike. (County Defs.' Reply Opp'n Strike (“Reply Strike”), ECF No. 47.)
On February 14, 2022, HIG filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike. (Def. HIG's Mot. Dismiss (“HIG Mot.”), ECF No. 48.) On the same date, Defendants CFMG, G. Garcia, and Guerrero (“CFMG Defendants”), filed a motion to dismiss. (Defs. G. Garcia, Guerrero, & CFMG's Mot. Dismiss (“CFMG Mot.”), ECF No. 49.) While the motions were initially set for hearing for March 15, 2022, then assigned District Judge Dale A. Drozd advised the parties that all civil motions set for hearing would be decided on the papers without a hearing. (ECF No. 50.) On March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to both motions to dismiss. (Pls.' Opp'n CFMG Mot. (“Opp'n CFMG”), ECF No. 51; Pls.' Opp'n HIG Mot. (“Opp'n HIG”), ECF No. 52.) On March 7, 2022, the Court granted a stipulated request to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file reply briefs. (ECF No. 54.)
On March 14, 2022, Defendants Carter, C. Garcia, Ponce, Franco, Cha, Thao, Her, Sanchez, LeBoeuf, Ventura, Owens, Alanis, and J. Sanchez (collectively the “Officer Defendants”), filed a motion to dismiss, setting the motion for hearing on April 19, 2022.
(Officer Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (“Officer Mot.”), ECF No. 56.) Judge Drozd again informed the parties that the motion would be decided on the papers. (ECF No. 57.)
On March 21, 2022, replies were filed to the oppositions to both the HIG and CFMG motions to dismiss. (CFMG's Reply Opp'n CFMG (“CFMG Reply”), ECF No. 58; HIG's Reply Opp'n HIG (“HIG Reply”), ECF No. 59.) On March 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Pls.' Opp'n Officer Mot. (“Opp'n Officer”), ECF No. 60.) On April 7, 2022, the Officer Defendants filed a reply brief. (County Officer Defs.' Reply Opp'n Officer (“Officer Reply”), ECF No. 61.)
On August 31, 2022, this action was reassigned to District Judge Ana de Alba. (ECF No. 65.) On September 12, 2022, the District Judge referred the County Defendants' motion to strike (ECF No. 25), Defendant HIG's motion to dismiss & strike (ECF No. 48), Defendants CFMG, G. Garcia, and Guerrero's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 49), and the County Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 56), to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations and/or other appropriate action. (ECF No. 67.) On September 14, 2022, the Court set the motions for hearing for October 5, 2022. (ECF No. 69.) On September 20, 2022, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court continued the hearing until November 2, 2022. (ECF No. 71.)
On November 2, 2022, the Court held the initial hearing on the motions. (ECF No. 72.) John Burton appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Brande Gustafson, Jemma Saunders, Evelina Gentry, and Ellen Robbins appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Pursuant to the matters discussed at the initial hearing, the parties agreed to file a stipulation regarding the particular claims against specific Defendants by November 9, 2022, and the Court continued the hearing on the motions until November 16, 2022. (ECF No. 72.)
On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendant CFMG filed a stipulated agreement to “jointly request to dismiss Plaintiffs' sixth claim for relief, brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, against CFMG with leave to amend their Complaint to allege a claim for relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act instead,” and proffering that Plaintiffs will amend the complaint after the Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 74.) HIG did not join in the stipulation, and proffered at the hearing that it declined to join in the stipulation pending the Court's rulings on the pending motions.
On November 16, 2022, a second hearing on the pending motions was held. (ECF No. 75.) John Burton appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Brande Gustafson, Peter Bertling, Evelina Gentry, and Ellen Robbins appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
The operative complaint is the first amended complaint filed on December 1, 2021. (ECF No. 20.) Twenty-nine-year-old Jah-Quavious (“Quabo”) Anderson (hereinafter, “Mr. Anderson” or “Decedent”), suffered from a chronic seizure disorder that he successfully controlled with medication and by avoiding seizure triggers, including undue heat. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 26-27.) On June 22, 2020, Mr. Anderson arrived at Fresno County Jail. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29.) At the time, CFMG contracted with the County of Fresno to provide healthcare services to inmates. (Id. at ¶ 13.) During his intake, Mr. Anderson informed the medical staff about his history of epilepsy. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Because this was not Mr. Anderson's first incarceration, CFMG employees had access to Mr. Anderson's prior medical history, including documentation that reflected his condition and needs for medication and housing in a well-ventilated, air-conditioned physical environment. (Id. at ¶¶ 27, 29.)
It reached 103°F in Fresno on the day Mr. Anderson arrived at the Jail. (Id. at ¶ 30.) The temperature the day before reached 104°F. (Id.) Despite Mr. Anderson's medical history and need for a well-ventilated, air-conditioned physical environment, CFMG employees and jail staff housed him in general population in a cell that faced the sun, instead of in a medical ward with the ventilation and air conditioning necessary for someone with his condition. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 29, 30.)
Mr Anderson complained to at least five officers that his cell was intolerably hot, putting him at an increased risk for...
To continue reading
Request your trial