G. v. City of San Leandro

Background

A.G., individually and as a co-successor in interest to Steven Taylor, sued the City of San Leandro, officers Jason Fletcher and Stefan Overton, and unnamed defendants. The complaint alleged that officers responded to a robbery call at a Walmart on April 18, 2020, where Taylor was holding a baseball bat. According to the complaint, Fletcher used a taser several times, then shot Taylor, and Overton used a taser again after Taylor fell. Taylor died from his injuries.

A.G. asserted seven claims: excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; violation of civil rights to a familial relationship under § 1983; municipal liability against the City under the rule commonly called Monell; wrongful death; violation of California Civil Code § 52.1; negligence; and battery. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and moved to strike the request for punitive and exemplary damages under Rule 12(f).

Standing

The City argued that A.G. lacked standing to assert claims belonging to Taylor because she had not filed the declaration required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32. A.G. argued that the declaration could be filed during the case. The court agreed with A.G. and found that her April 10, 2024 declaration complied with § 377.32. The court therefore found that she had standing to bring claims on Taylor’s behalf.

Section 1983 Claims Against the City

The court dismissed the excessive-force claim against the City with prejudice. The parties agreed, and the court held, that the City was not a proper defendant for the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim because a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely for the wrongful acts of its employees under a theory of automatic employer responsibility.

A.G.’s Monell claim alleged that the City failed to train Fletcher and Overton on balancing officer and public safety when using force. The court held that the complaint did not allege enough facts about the officers’ training, how the training was inadequate, or a pattern of similar constitutional violations. The allegation that Fletcher had previously been sued multiple times for excessive force, including in 2007 and 2009, did not establish the required pattern. The court dismissed the Monell claim with leave to amend so A.G. could provide factual support.

State-Law Claims

The court applied the California Government Claims Act, which generally requires a person seeking money or damages from a public entity or public employee to present a timely written claim before filing suit. A.G. acknowledged that the City had not been served with an administrative claim in this case or the related case. She argued that special circumstances and the alleged misconduct of an attorney for Taylor’s estate should excuse compliance.

The court rejected that argument. It held that the positive-misconduct doctrine did not excuse A.G.’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act when the alleged misconduct was by a third party’s attorney. The court dismissed A.G.’s state-law claims without leave to amend.

Punitive and Exemplary Damages

A.G. sought punitive and exemplary damages against the City, but not against Fletcher or Overton. The court held that such damages are not recoverable against public entities under California Government Code § 818 and granted the City’s motion to strike that request.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to A.G.’s Monell claim; granted the City’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend as to A.G.’s state-law claims; and granted the City’s motion to strike A.G.’s request for punitive and exemplary damages. The court stated that an amended complaint could be filed by April 28, 2025.