Rothschild v. Gildred

Background

Mayer Amschel Rothschild lived at 128 Lorton Avenue, Unit #4, in Burlingame, California, with his then-fiancé, Stephanie Ann Gildred, until December 2020. The opinion states that Gildred and Lorton Management Corporation owned the property and were responsible for the premises. Rothschild alleged that a significant rodent infestation developed, making the property unsafe and uninhabitable, and that Defendants failed to remedy it after he reported the problem.

Rothschild’s Second Amended Complaint asserted negligence, negligence per se, and private and public nuisance. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. While the case was stayed, Rothschild filed another amended complaint without permission from the court or Defendants and after the deadline set by the court.

Third Amended Complaint

The court struck the later amended complaint because Rothschild filed it without obtaining the court’s permission or Defendants’ consent. Although the court considered its allegations when deciding whether to allow another amendment, it treated the Second Amended Complaint as the pleading subject to the motion to dismiss.

Negligence and Negligence Per Se

The court held that Rothschild did not plead enough facts to support negligence. Although he alleged that Defendants owed him a duty to maintain the premises safely and failed to remedy the rodent infestation, he did not explain what harm he actually suffered. Listing possible diseases, property damage, emotional distress, and financial costs that rodents could cause was not enough to establish that the infestation harmed him.

The negligence per se claim also failed. The court explained that negligence per se is not an independent claim under California law; it may support an ordinary negligence claim when a statutory, regulatory, or ordinance violation caused the required injury. Because Rothschild did not adequately plead negligence or specific harm, his negligence per se claim also failed.

The court further concluded that the negligence claims were barred by California’s two-year limitations period. Rothschild admitted at the hearing that he moved out in December 2020. The court treated December 2020 as the last time he could have been harmed by negligence concerning the infestation and concluded that the limitations period expired by December 2022, before he filed this case in May 2023. The court rejected his arguments based on continuing harm and the discovery rule.

The court had previously given Rothschild opportunities to amend and had informed him that his negligence claims lacked sufficient factual allegations. Because he repeatedly failed to correct the deficiencies, and because the court found further amendment futile, it dismissed the negligence and negligence per se claims with prejudice.

Private and Public Nuisance

The court found that Rothschild’s nuisance allegations were too conclusory. He alleged that the infestation substantially interfered with his use and enjoyment of the property and posed a public-health risk to other tenants and the community, but he did not explain specifically how the infestation caused those effects.

The court also noted that Rothschild had previously raised nuisance claims in a related proceeding and had been instructed to allege facts supporting those claims. Because he did not provide those facts here, the court concluded that justice did not require another opportunity to amend. It dismissed the private and public nuisance claims with prejudice.

Disposition

The court struck Rothschild’s Third Amended Complaint, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the file.