Salcido v. City of Mountain View

Background

Felix Salcido alleged that he was working as a tow-truck driver when he towed a vehicle belonging to Ellen Kamei and Christopher Takeuchi from reserved parking spaces. Salcido alleged that the spaces had visible signs warning that unauthorized vehicles would be towed. He further alleged that Kamei and Takeuchi used Kamei’s position and contacts as a Mountain View city council member to complain to the police and initiate an investigation into Salcido’s towing practices.

Salcido alleged that Sergeant Christopher Goff investigated the tow, prepared a police report, and submitted information that was later used in an arrest-warrant application. A district attorney then brought a felony charge against Salcido under California Vehicle Code § 10851(a). Salcido alleged that he fought the charge and that it was later dismissed in his favor.

After Salcido filed a First Amended Complaint, Takeuchi, Kamei, and the City of Mountain View and Goff filed three separate motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim. The parties also filed requests for judicial notice, asking the court to consider materials outside the complaint.

Judicial Notice

The court denied all requests for judicial notice. It declined to consider Salcido’s declarations because the facts in them were subject to reasonable dispute. It also declined the other requests because the materials were not relied on in reaching the order or, for the City’s request concerning a city council meeting agenda, because the request was improperly made with a reply brief.

Federal Malicious-Prosecution Claim

Salcido brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging that Goff and Kamei violated the Fourth Amendment through malicious prosecution. The court explained that such a claim requires allegations that a government official charged the plaintiff without probable cause and that the charge led to an unreasonable seizure.

As to Goff, the court held that Salcido did not adequately allege that the claimed omissions from Goff’s police report were material to probable cause. Salcido alleged that Goff identified the wrong two most recently towed vehicles and omitted information about contacting other vehicle owners. The court concluded that probable cause would still exist even if the report were corrected and supplemented with those omissions. The court therefore dismissed Salcido’s § 1983 claim against Goff.

As to Kamei, the court found that Salcido did not adequately allege that she acted under color of state law, a required element of a § 1983 claim. The court also found that Salcido had abandoned the claim, or at least conceded the issue, because his opposition to Kamei’s motion did not address her § 1983 liability or whether she acted under color of state law. The court dismissed the § 1983 claim against Kamei.

The court noted that it was unclear whether Salcido was also asserting that Goff’s alleged detention independently violated the Fourth Amendment. Goff addressed that issue in his motion, but Salcido did not address it in his opposition, which focused on malicious prosecution.

California Bane Act Claims

Salcido alleged that Goff, Kamei, Takeuchi, and the City violated California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act by interfering with his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The court described the Bane Act as requiring intentional interference, or attempted interference, with a constitutional or legal right through threats, intimidation, or coercion.

As to Goff, the court held that Salcido did not allege facts showing that his detention amounted to a seizure protected by the Fourth Amendment. Salcido alleged that Goff was aggressive, dismissive, and scornful, but did not allege that he felt unable to leave or provide details about the length, location, or circumstances of the interrogation. The court dismissed the Bane Act claim against Goff.

As to Kamei, the court found that Salcido did not adequately allege interference through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The allegations that Kamei angrily questioned the tow and claimed that the company owning the reserved spaces did not exist were statements, not threats of violence. The court dismissed the Bane Act claim against Kamei.

As to Takeuchi, the court found that his repeated demand that Kamei “call the captain” did not amount to a threat of violence, intimidation, or coercion under the Bane Act. The court dismissed the Bane Act claim against Takeuchi.

The court also dismissed the Bane Act claim against the City of Mountain View because Salcido had not adequately pleaded a Bane Act violation against Goff, Kamei, or Takeuchi. The court separately noted that although the First Amended Complaint mentioned Article I, Section 10 of the California Constitution, Salcido did not plead or argue facts supporting that claim.

California Malicious-Prosecution Claim

Salcido alleged that Takeuchi wrongfully caused a criminal proceeding to be brought against him. Under California law, a malicious-prosecution claim requires, among other things, that the defendant commenced or directed the underlying proceeding and was actively instrumental in causing the prosecution.

The court held that Salcido did not adequately allege that Takeuchi, a private person, actively caused the prosecution. Although Salcido alleged that Takeuchi and Kamei contacted people at the Mountain View Police Department about the tow, he did not allege that Takeuchi falsely reported facts showing that Salcido had committed a crime. The court dismissed Salcido’s state-law malicious-prosecution claim against Takeuchi.

Disposition

The court granted all three motions to dismiss Salcido’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The court granted Salcido leave to file a second amended complaint by August 4, 2025. It stated that he could not add claims or parties without the court’s permission and indicated that, in the interest of justice, it intended to allow discovery before Salcido further amended his complaint.