Doe v. City of Ukiah

Background

Jane Doe sued the City of Ukiah, the Ukiah Police Department, and Ukiah Police Chief Noble Waidelich. She alleges that Waidelich sexually assaulted her in her home and that the City is responsible for negligently supervising him. The City moved to dismiss the second and third causes of action in Doe’s Second Amended Complaint under the federal pleading rules.

Second Cause of Action

The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a person acting under state authority violated a right protected by the Constitution or federal law. Doe made only two passing references to the Fourteenth Amendment and did not identify the federal right she claimed the City violated. The court therefore could not determine whether she had adequately alleged municipal liability under Monell.

The court also found that Doe’s allegations of supervisory liability were conclusory. She alleged that “supervisory officers” knew or should have known that Waidelich would violate her constitutional rights, but she did not identify those officers or explain what wrongful conduct they committed or how they were personally involved. The court granted the motion to dismiss the second cause of action with leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action

The third cause of action alleges negligent supervision. Under the law discussed by the court, an employer may be liable for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee when the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.

The court rejected the City’s effort to rely on facts outside the complaint, including an investigator’s conclusion that earlier assault allegations were unsubstantiated. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court had to accept Doe’s factual allegations as true and interpret them in her favor. Doe alleged that an investigator told another alleged victim that the police department hired him to “cover their asses,” that the other victim later came forward and sued Waidelich, and that the City promoted Waidelich to chief despite knowing about the allegations and lawsuit. The court held that these allegations sufficiently pleaded a reasonably foreseeable risk that Waidelich would assault Doe and denied the motion to dismiss the third cause of action.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss the second cause of action and denied the motion to dismiss the third cause of action. Doe may file an amended complaint by August 5, 2024. The court stated that no additional parties or claims may be added without leave of court or a stipulation. It also noted that the City may move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before moving to dismiss any further amended complaint.