Naseri v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Zahir Naseri alleged that he had worked as a transportation network company driver for Uber and Lyft for almost nine years, including at San Francisco International Airport. He alleged that on June 24, 2023, airport staff stopped him over the color of his Lyft placard, seized his Lyft and Uber placards and emblems, ordered him out of his car, and told him he was under arrest. He also alleged that one employee called him a “Middle Eastern driver.”

Naseri alleged that, after the incident, Lyft permanently banned him and his vehicle from San Francisco International Airport, and Uber banned him from all California airports. He alleged that he received no prior notice or opportunity to contest the bans and that other drivers with incorrect placards received warnings or fines instead of permanent bans.

The operative Second Amended Complaint asserted federal constitutional claims, California state-law claims, and claims based on San Francisco policies, airport rules, transportation policies, and nondiscrimination ordinances. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Procedural matters

The court did not consider Naseri’s opposition to the City’s reply or his later response because the City’s reply was timely under the applicable local rule.

The court took judicial notice of Naseri’s government claim, the City’s notice rejecting that claim, the San Francisco International Airport rules and regulations, and the Lyft permit. It declined to take judicial notice of an airport notice because it was unclear whether Naseri received it, and it declined to take judicial notice of twenty-seven cases because judicial notice concerns facts, not case law.

Federal claims

Naseri asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Fourth Amendment provisions of the United States Constitution. Because the City and County of San Francisco was the only defendant, Naseri had to allege that a City policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional injury. The court explained that such a policy or custom could include an official policy, a persistent practice, a failure to train, or ratification by a final policymaker.

The court found that the Second Amended Complaint did not allege a relevant unconstitutional City policy or custom. Although Naseri referred to transportation and airport policies, he alleged that the City violated those policies—not that the policies themselves were unconstitutional. The court also noted that the complaint did not allege the broader discriminatory practice, inadequate training, or supervision theories that Naseri discussed in his opposition. The court therefore granted the City’s motion to dismiss the federal claims and granted Naseri leave to amend them.

State-law claims

Naseri asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and the California Administrative Procedure Act. The City argued that these claims were barred by California’s Government Claims Act, which generally requires a lawsuit for money damages against a local public entity to be filed within six months after the rejection notice is mailed.

Naseri sought compensatory damages, damages for pain and suffering, punitive damages, and reinstatement as a driver at the airport. The court found that the City mailed its rejection notice on August 22, 2023, while Naseri filed his original lawsuit on July 15, 2024. Because he did not allege compliance with the Government Claims Act or circumstances excusing compliance, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state-law claims. It denied leave to amend those claims because amendment would be futile.

Claims based on local policies, rules, and ordinances

Naseri alleged violations of San Francisco’s City Transportation Policy, the airport rules and regulations, airport transportation network company policies, and the City’s nondiscrimination ordinances. The court ruled that the complaint did not identify a specific local ordinance providing a private right to sue or give the City fair notice of the legal basis for the claims.

The court also ruled that a local government’s alleged violation of its own policies or ordinances does not, by itself, establish a violation of the federal Constitution. It granted the City’s motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied leave to amend them to the extent they arose under state law because of the Government Claims Act, but otherwise granted leave to amend, including to allege claims under municipal law.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. It granted Naseri leave to amend his federal claims and to allege claims under municipal law, while denying leave to amend his state-law claims. The court stated that any Third Amended Complaint had to be filed by February 21, 2025.