Morales v. City & Cnty. of S.F.
| Decision Date | 20 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 21-cv-03957-EMC |
| Citation | 603 F.Supp.3d 841 |
| Parties | Steve MORALES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Patrick Matthew Buelna, Adante Pointer, Ty Clarke, Pointer & Buelna, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Edmund T. Wang, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant City and County of San Francisco.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
In this case, Plaintiffs Steve Morales and a minor through their guardian Wendy Chau, filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco ("CCSF"), two law enforcement officers Russell Fong and Ryan Lau, Justice Operating Company, LLC (the "Hilton Hotel"), and Does 1–50 (law enforcement officers and those responsible for their training, supervision and/or conduct). Plaintiffs allege that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement officers unlawfully detained him and used excessive force. Against the officers, Plaintiffs allege unlawful detention and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Against the officers and CCSF, Plaintiffs allege state claims of assault, battery, negligence, false imprisonment/illegal detention, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS CCSF's motion to dismiss Morales's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") with prejudice.
On May 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint, which was subsequently amended solely to correct Hilton Hotel's name and to include a photo. See Docket No. 1; Docket No. 14. On October 7, 2021, this Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") for failure to state a claim. See Docket No. 24 ("Minute Order 1") at 1.
Thereafter, in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Plaintiffs had alleged that the police officers lied in claiming that the Hilton Hotel had called to report a domestic dispute and possible child custody issue and told the police that Morales was not allowed to take the child he was carrying. Docket No. 29 (SAC) at 5. Plaintiffs had further detailed in their brief that the hotel's manager aided the alleged false imprisonment by whispering in the officers’ ears and egging the false imprisonment. Docket No. 44 (SAC Opp'n) at 5. Plaintiffs alleged that the officers fabricated such claims because the dispatch records did not reflect such a call. SAC at 5. At the same time, Plaintiffs also alleged that the Hilton Hotel made false reports to the police. See id. at 10.
On January 20, 2022, the Court granted CSSF's and Hilton Hotel's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SAC, finding that (1) the accusation against Hilton Hotel was difficult to reconcile with the allegations against CCSF (they were inconsistent with each other), and (2) the alleged force – the grab and twist of the arm and a chest bump – was insufficient without any allegations of injury, pain or description that it was violent or aggressive. See Docket No. 49 ("Minute Order 2") (citing Berry v. City & Cty. of San Francisco , No. 17-CV-00056-EDL, 2017 WL 10487546, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2017) ()).
In the TAC, Plaintiffs remove the Hilton Hotel as a defendant and name the two officers of the San Francisco Police Department – Russel Fond and Ryan Lau. See generally Docket No. 52 (TAC). The TAC deletes the hotel's involvement and does not discuss the lack of Computer Automated Dispatch records. Id.
Plaintiffs make the following allegations in the TAC:
On May 28, 2020, Morales visited his fiancée (Wendy Chau), their infant, and Ms. Chau's sister at the Hilton Hotel. TAC at 4. At the hotel, Morales asked a security guard for directions to the elevator. Id. The security guard questioned Morales about being a registered guest, and he explained he was not a registered guest but visiting a registered guest. Id. He then met the registered hotel guest, Ms. Chau's sister, and went up the elevator and to the hotel room. Id.
After visiting, Morales left the hotel to go to his car and wait for his fiancée and her sister. TAC at 5. He had no further interactions with hotel staff. Id. As Morales stepped out of the hotel onto the city sidewalk with his infant in his arms and proceeded to walk to his car with a friend, two law enforcement officers, Fong and Lau, came from behind him. Id. An officer jerked one of his arms behind his back, nearly causing him to lose hold of his infant child, and challenged Morales to fight him. Id. Unable to see who the officers were, Morales was concerned that he was being mugged, and he pulled away for his and his child's safety. Id. The officers then grabbed and twisted Morales’ arm while he held his baby in the other and told him he was being detained. Id. They then detained him across the street from the Hilton Hotel, and Morales permitted the officers to twist one of his arms while he held his baby in the other. Id.
When Morales asked the officers why he was being detained, Fong and Lau lied by saying that he was seen having an argument with his wife and that a hotel employee told Fong and Lau that Morales was not allowed to take the baby. Id.
According to Morales, neither officer had any reliable information or evidence (including any information provided by Hilton employees) and invented the allegation that Morales did not have the right to take his daughter without any reasonable basis. Id. at 7. He alleges that neither officer prepared reports that indicated they were investigating a child custody issue or kidnapping. Id. at 5–6. Neither officer had any written documents to justify or document their seizure and force. Id. at 6. Instead, the complaint implies the officers stopped him solely because he and the child appeared to be of different races.
The officers then insisted that Morales prove his relationship with his daughter, and Morales instructed his friend to call his fiancée, the mother of his child. Id. Lau and Morales argued about whether the officers had instructed Morales to call his fiancée in the first place. Id. Lau then challenged Morales to hit him, then challenged Morales to fight him by bumping Morales with his chest and aggressively saying, "Come on." Id. Lau also aggressively got in Morales’ face while he held his child in his arms. Id.
At this point, Fong interceded to calm down Lau. Id. However, the officers continued to refuse to believe that Morales, an African-American man, was the father of his baby, who appeared Asian-American. The officers continued to act aggressively toward Morales and refused to believe him before finally permitting him and his family to leave.
In sum, the only difference between the SAC and TAC seems to be the removal of Hilton Hotel as a defendant and discussions of dispatch records, the naming of the two officers, and adding that the officers "aggressively" said, "Come on."
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), a plaintiff's "factual allegations [in the complaint] ‘must ... suggest that the claim has at least a plausible chance of success.’ " Levitt v. Yelp! Inc. , 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014). The court "accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). But "allegations in a complaint ... may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action [and] must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively." Levitt, 765 F.3d at 1135 (quoting Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co. , 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014) ). "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." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
"[A]n officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Illinois v. Wardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570, (2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ); see also United States v. Bontemps , 977 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2020). "[T]he Supreme Court has said repeatedly that they must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing." United States v. Brown , 996 F.3d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Previously, Plaintiffs had argued that the officers fabricated that the Hilton Hotel had...
To continue reading
Request your trial