Estate of Osuna v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

• Citation: 392 F.Supp.3d 1162
• Decision Date: 24 June 2019
• Docket Number: No. 1:18-cv-01240-DAD-SAB,1:18-cv-01240-DAD-SAB
• Parties: ESTATE OF Armando OSUNA, Nancy Osuna, and Paul Osuna, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department, Adam Christianson, and Doe 1 to 50, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

392 F.Supp.3d 1162

ESTATE OF Armando OSUNA, Nancy Osuna, and Paul Osuna, Plaintiffs,

v.COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department, Adam Christianson, and Doe 1 to 50, Defendant.

No. 1:18-cv-01240-DAD-SAB

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed June 24, 2019

Filed June 25, 2019

Mark E. Merin, Paul Hajime Masuhara, III, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.

John Robert Whitefleet, Porter Scott, APC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART

Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint filed on behalf of defendants. (Doc. No. 9-1.) A hearing on the motion was held on December 18, 2018. Attorney Mark Merin appeared in person on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney John Whitefleet appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and having heard from counsel, defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons explained below.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the death of Armando Osuna (the "decedent") on or about May 29, 2018. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege as follows. On the date in question, the decedent returned to a house from which he and his wife, plaintiff Nancy Osuna, had been evicted in order to ascertain when furniture that they had left behind would be made available to them so that the decedent could arrange for a truck to pick it up. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 13–15.) The owner of the property told the decedent to leave the premises and called defendant Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff's Department"). (Id. at ¶ 16.) Deputies from the Sheriff's Department responded to the call and encountered the decedent on the street near the house. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Sometime thereafter, the unarmed decedent was shot by the deputies. (Id. at ¶ 18.) He was transported to a nearby hospital; he later lost his life as a result of this incident. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

On September 12, 2018, the estate of the decedent (the "estate"), Nancy Osuna, and the decedent and Nancy Osuna's son, Paul Osuna (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed this complaint against defendants County of Stanislaus (the "County"), the, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department, Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, and Doe Defendants 1–50 (collectively, "defendants"). (Doc. No. 1.) Doe Defendants 1–25 were deputies employed by the Sheriff's Department who responded to the property owner's call and encountered Mr. Osuna on the street. (Id. at 3–4.) Doe Defendants 26–50 were policy-makers for the county and/or the Sheriff's Department responsible for policies relating to training, supervision, and discipline of law enforcement officers. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff bring the following eight causes of action: (1) unreasonable force in violation of Mr. Osuna's Fourth Amendment rights, asserted by the estate against all defendants; (2) deprivation of familial association, companionship, and society in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserted by Nancy and Paul Osuna against Doe defendants 1–25; (3) deprivation of association, companionship, and society in violation of the First Amendment, asserted by Nancy and Paul Osuna against Doe defendants 1–25; (4) unreasonable force in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the California constitution, asserted by the estate against all defendants; (5) Bane Act violations alleging unreasonable force and deprivation of familial association, companionship, and society, asserted by all plaintiffs against all defendants; (6) assault and battery claims asserted by the estate against Stanislaus County, the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department, and Doe defendants 1–25; (7) a negligence claim asserted by the estate against all defendants, and (8) a wrongful death claim asserted by Nancy and Paul Osuna against all defendants. (Id. at 7–19.) The complaint also alleges that multiple incidents of police misconduct have recently occurred involving the Sheriff's Department, frequently resulting in large monetary settlements being reached or jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs being returned. (See id. at ¶ 23.) Based upon those previous incidents, plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice of police misconduct.

On November 5, 2018, defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 9-1.) On December 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) On December 11, 2018, defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. No. 14.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Hishon v. King & Spalding , 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) ; Love v. United States , 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose , 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. See also Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff "can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the ... laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters , 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983).

DISCUSSION

Defendants advance multiple arguments in support of their motion to dismiss. Each is addressed in turn below.

A. Use of Doe Defendants Does Not Violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

Defendants argue that the naming of Doe defendants by plaintiffs violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) because "[p]laintiffs do not identify each doe defendant and his or her alleged act or omission" and "vague and generalized allegations ... [are] insufficient to put prospective defendants on notice of their alleged actions or omissions." (Doc. Nos. 9-1 at 4; 14 at 3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ("A pleading ... must contain: a short and plaint statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."). Defendants' argument is not persuasive.

It is true that the use of Doe defendants in federal courts is "generally disfavored." (Doc. No. 9-1 at 4) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti , 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) ). However, as the court in Gillespie noted

situations arise, such as the present, where the identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.

629 F.2d at 642. Here, defendants do not contend that discovery will not uncover the identities of the Doe defendants and, as reflected in this order, the court does not find that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. Moreover, plaintiffs have alleged all the information about the Doe defendants as plaintiffs possess at this juncture of the litigation. In this regard, the complaint alleges that Doe defendants 1–25 are or were deputies of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department who encountered the decedent on the day that he was killed, and that Doe defendants 26-50 are or were policymakers for Stanislaus County or the Sheriff's Department who are or were responsible for policies relating to training, supervision, and discipline of law enforcement officers. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–4.) Defendants' contention that plaintiffs "should be required to identify the unnamed defendants as best as possible, and allege specific acts that these doe defendants did," (Doc. No. 9-1 at 4), is unavailing because plaintiffs have alleged as best as possible at this time facts regarding the Doe defendants, and "[they] do not have access to any further information concerning these parties, including their identities, because, as far as plaintiffs know, ‘the only witness other than the officers was killed during the encounter.’ " (Doc. No. 12 at 11) (quoting Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim , 747 F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 2014) ). See Wells v. Kendall , No. 2:17-cv-2709 AC P, 2019 WL 1787172, *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) ; Powe v. Nevada , No. 2:17-cv-00470-JAD-GWF, 2019 WL 918982, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 22, 2019) ("Although the use of the ‘Doe’ placeholder to identify a defendant is not favored, flexibility is allowed in some cases where the identity of the parties...