ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Pro se Plaintiff Laurent Granier ("Plaintiff") initiated the present action asserting criminal and civil rights violations against a varied group of 34 defendants, including the State of California, California Highway Patrol ("CHP"), California Department of Insurance ("CDI"), California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), Governor Edmund G. Brown, CHP Commissioner Joseph Farrow ("Commissioner Farrow"), California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones ("Commissioner Jones"), Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club ("Interinsurance Exchange"), AAA Southern California, Progressive West Insurance Company ("Progressive West"), and various individuals (collectively, "Defendants"). In short, Plaintiff alleges Defendants colluded in the theft of his car and interfered in his attempt to recover the car, thereby violating federal criminal law and his civil rights.
Federal jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Presently before the court are Defendants' several motions to dismiss the complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 85. The court found these matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and previously vacated the hearing. Having carefully reviewed the parties'briefing, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The allegations in Plaintiff's 66-page complaint arise from his involvement in an automobile accident. The following is a summary of the salient portions:
On October 9, 2014, in the County of Santa Cruz, Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident when Defendant Perri Noelle Montgomery ("Montgomery") hit Plaintiff's car in the rear. Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1. An ambulance and the police arrived to the scene, and Plaintiff was taken to the hospital because he had pain in his back, left shoulder, neck, and left bottom. Id. at ¶ 2. Before leaving for the hospital, Plaintiff gave the police officer a copy of his AAA automobile club membership, and the police officer called Ladd's Auto Body & Towing ("Ladd's") to tow both cars. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.
A. Automobile Insurance Dispute Plaintiff's automobile insurer was Progressive West. Id. at ¶ 6. He alleges that Progressive West failed to assist Plaintiff in the handling of his claim and settling his losses, and Progressive West ultimately closed Plaintiff's claim regarding the automobile accident. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiff alleges he was left on his own to contact Montgomery and her automobile insurance company. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.
Plaintiff alleges that during his investigation, he learned that Montgomery's insurance company was listed as "CAA," but was not registered with the CDI. Id. at ¶ 10. After obtaining assistance from his automobile club, Plaintiff discovered that "CAA" was in actuality AAA Southern California. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 14. He was then able to communicate with AAA Southern California's claims manager, Defendant C.J. Lucas ("Lucas"). Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that "CAA" and AAA Southern California are "fake names" for Defendant Interinsurance Exchange. Id. at p.4.
Plaintiff reported at least two damages to Lucas: payment for the repair of his laptop, which broke during the automobile accident; and payment for the damages of his car. Lucas didnot issue a payment for the repair of the laptop. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. As to the car, Lucas wanted proof of its replacement value, thus he sent an expert to Ladd's to evaluate the damages and value of the car. Id. at ¶¶ 17-20. After a couple of days, Lucas told Plaintiff that the estimated value of the car was $17,086.20, even though Plaintiff had earlier sent Lucas an advertisement showing the value of a nearly identical car to be at $39,9990. Id. at ¶ 21.
Plaintiff challenged the estimate, and sent emails and "formal notices" to Lucas and Lucas's manager, Defendant Cynthia Velasco ("Velasco"). Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff asked for proof of the value estimate and asked for information concerning Interinsurance Exchange. Id. at ¶ 23. In each of these formal notices, Plaintiff claimed a total of $72,050 in property damages and expenses, and claimed damages for the "hassle" he endured that disturbed his mind, and private and professional lives. Id. at ¶¶ 25-26. In sum, Plaintiff asked for at least $500,000. Id. at ¶ 26.
Plaintiff alleges he filed a complaint with the CDI alleging misconduct on the part of Interinsurance Exchange, which conducted business as "CAA" and AAA Southern California. Id. at ¶ 27. The CDI, however, did not conduct any investigation. Id. Plaintiff thereafter filed a civil complaint in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against Lucas, Velasco, and individuals from AAA Southern California and the CDI. Id. at ¶ 28. The causes of action are unknown.
On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff alleges he went to Ladd's to see his car and discovered it was missing. Id. at ¶ 29. Ladd's manager, Defendant Lyle Wollert ("Wollert"), told Plaintiff that, the day before, someone from the insurance company went to Ladd's to pick up the car. Id. Since Wollert was unable to provide the name of the person who picked up the car, he referred Plaintiff to Ladd's owner, Defendant Jack Ladd ("Ladd"). Id. at ¶ 30. Ladd provided Plaintiff with a document brought by the person who picked up the car, and Ladd showed Plaintiff that the invoice for the towing and storage of the car was paid by the person who took the car. Id.
Plaintiff subsequently went to the Santa Cruz County Sherriff's Office to report the theft of his car, and met with a deputy sheriff, Defendant Ryan York ("Deputy York"). Id. at ¶ 31.Plaintiff alleges Deputy York called Ladd and was told that the car was picked up by the insurance company "CAA." Id. Deputy York declared this matter to be a civil matter because there was no theft, and refused to file Plaintiff's criminal report for theft. Id. at ¶ 32. Plaintiff then filed a civil complaint in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against Ladd, Wollert, and the Sheriff-Coroner for Santa Cruz County, Defendant Phil Wowak ("Sheriff Wowak"). Id. at ¶ 38. The causes of action are unknown. Plaintiff also filed a claim with his automobile insurance company, Progressive West, reporting the theft of his car. Id. at ¶ 40.
On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff alleges he went to the CHP office in Santa Cruz County to report the theft of his car, and was able to file a report. Id. at ¶ 42. After filing the CHP report, Plaintiff spoke to the claims investigator for Progressive West, Defendant Scott Kwieran ("Kwieran"). Id. at ¶ 43. Kwieran told Plaintiff that his car was not stolen, but it was moved by "AAA." Id. When Plaintiff asked for written proof of the removal or the recovery of the car by Progressive West, Kwieran refused to provide any such proof. Id.
Later, Plaintiff alleges he went to his home and picked up his mail. Id. at ¶ 48. In the mail, he discovered a letter Ladd sent him that included a "fake invoice" for tow and storage of his car, and stated that a lien was placed on the car. Id. The letter included a document of the pending lien at the DMV registered by Defendant James Pettit ("Pettit") for a vehicle valued at $4,000. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this letter proves Ladd stole his car. Id. at ¶¶ 51-52.
The following week, while Plaintiff was in Los Angeles, he alleges that he went to the CHP office and learned that the CHP report he previously filed in Santa Cruz County had been deleted from CHP records. Id. at ¶¶ 52-53. The CHP officer in Los Angeles did not file a new report, but told Plaintiff to file the report in the CHP office in Santa Cruz County. Id. at ¶ 53. Plaintiff called the CHP office in Santa Cruz County and was told that a claim representative for Plaintiff's insurance company called CHP and asked to delete the file about the theft because no theft had occurred. Id. at ¶ 54. The CHP office then advised Plaintiff to call his insurance company. Id.
Plaintiff commenced the instant action on December 8, 2014, asserting the following sixteen claims against all 34 Defendants:
| 1 Violation of Civil Rights: |
| Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that under Lucas's order, Ladd |
| and Wollert stole Plaintiff's car. |
| 2 Violation of Civil Rights: |
| Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that under Lucas's order, Ladd |
| and Wollert delivered Plaintiff's car to a person sent by |
| Lucas. The unknown person then took possession of |
| 3 Violation of Civil Rights: |
| Identity Theft and Impersonation |
| Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that under Lucas's order, Ladd |
| and Wollert delivered Plaintiff's car to an unknown |
| person. The unknown person took possession of the |
| car and paid Ladd's invoice on Plaintiff's behalf, thus |
| using Plaintiff's identity without his knowledge. |
| 4 Violation of Civil Rights: |
| Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that under Lucas's order, Ladd |
| and Wollert edited an invoice addressed to Plaintiff |
| that was paid by an unknown person on Plaintiff's |
| 5 Violation of Civil Rights: |
| Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that under Lucas's order, Ladd |
| and Wollert stole and delivered Plaintiff's car, which |
| was the only evidence supporting Plaintiff's damages |
| arising out of the automobile accident. He alleges that |
| the car was the basis for damages owed by |
| Interinsurance Exchange to Plaintiff. |
| 6 Violation of Civil Rights: |
| Fake Declarations, Lies and |
| Perjury to an Official Agency |
| Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that Ladd edited a fake invoice |
| addressed to Plaintiff and used Pettit to register at the |
| DMV a lien on the title of the car. He alleges that the |
| declaration supporting the lien was made under perjury |
| because the car was no longer in Ladd's custody and |
...
