Hazari v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Cyrus Hazari, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the County of Santa Clara and individual defendants. Hazari owns property in San Jose that he purchased in 1998. He alleged that County personnel prevented repairs and improvements, concealed property-related documents, made the permitting process costly and burdensome, accused him of ordinance violations, entered the property, restricted grazing use, demanded demolition or permitting of a residential structure, and interfered with a septic-system contract.

Hazari asserted 18 causes of action, including equal protection, due process, fraud, a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, vandalism, personal injury, interference, inverse condemnation, discrimination, emotional distress, negligence, estoppel, defamation, and statutory violations.

Motion and Legal Standard

The County moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint contains enough factual matter to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepted well-pleaded facts as true for purposes of the motion and construed the allegations liberally because Hazari was not represented by a lawyer.

The County also asked the court to take judicial notice of four documents concerning Hazari’s claim under the California Tort Claims Act. Because Hazari did not oppose that request and the documents could be accurately considered, the court granted the request.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Hazari did not adequately allege how the facts in his complaint supported any of his causes of action. He also did not identify which claims applied to which defendants. The court therefore granted the County’s motion to dismiss all claims for inadequate pleading.

For the equal-protection and due-process claims, which the court treated as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Hazari did not connect those legal theories to the alleged conduct of County staff or identify which constitutional rights were infringed by which staff members. The court dismissed those claims.

The court also dismissed the RICO claim because Hazari did not explain how that law applied or allege facts satisfying the required elements, including conduct involving an enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity, and an injury to business or property.

The state-law claims had the same pleading deficiencies. In addition, the court found that Hazari’s allegation that he had complied with the California Tort Claims Act was contradicted by the judicially noticed documents. The County returned his claim as untimely, denied his later application to present a late claim, and told him he first needed to seek relief in state court. Hazari did not do so before filing this federal lawsuit. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking damages because the required claims process had not been completed. The court said that the claims process was not required for otherwise well-pleaded state-law claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.

The court noted the County’s assertion that several individual defendants had not been served, but it took no action on service because no motion based on failure to serve had been filed.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the County’s motion to dismiss all claims because Hazari had not adequately pleaded them. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the state-law claims seeking damages without leave to amend. It granted the motion to dismiss the state-law claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Hazari may file an amended complaint within 90 days of the order. Any amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of each claim, allege facts supporting each required element, and clearly identify the facts alleged against each defendant. The court limited amendment to the defects addressed in the order and barred adding parties or claims without prior permission.