Estate of Decedent Lolomania Soakai v. City of Oakland

Background

Plaintiffs initially asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims for negligence, wrongful death, violations of the Bane Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After defendants moved to dismiss all claims, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint instead of opposing that motion. The amended complaint asserted § 1983 claims and a Bane Act claim, but did not include the negligence and wrongful-death claims.

The court later granted in part and denied in part motions concerning the amended complaint and allowed plaintiffs to amend their § 1983 claim against the City and their California Bane Act claim. Plaintiffs later filed a Third Amended Complaint that again included negligence and wrongful-death claims. Defendants then moved to dismiss those claims, arguing that plaintiffs had waived them by leaving them out of the First Amended Complaint.

Analysis

The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent stating that claims dismissed with leave to amend may be treated as waived when they are not included in the amended pleading. The court explained that district courts have applied that reasoning to claims voluntarily left out of a later complaint when the claims could have been included.

Plaintiffs cited cases limiting that rule to waiver of appellate rights. The court found that most of the cases addressing the issue treated claims as waived when they were not repleaded and there was no justification for omitting them. The court noted that plaintiffs gave no reason for excluding the negligence and wrongful-death claims or for repleading them almost a year later, such as newly discovered facts or a change in the law.

Ruling

The court found that plaintiffs waived the negligence and wrongful-death claims when they voluntarily omitted them while responding to a pending motion to dismiss. It therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state-law claims for negligence and wrongful death. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also vacated the scheduled September 15, 2025 hearing.