Lopez v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The case arose from an April 23, 2024 assault in San Francisco. The victim initially described the male assailant as a mixed-race Black male adult, approximately 25 years old, and gave additional details about his height, weight, hair, and eyes. The victim also described a female associate. The assault was witnessed by a security guard and captured on surveillance video.

The next day, the victim saw Leonardo Centeno Lopez, whom the opinion describes as a Latino male in his thirties, accompanied by a Latina female. The victim identified Lopez as the male assailant and the woman as the accomplice. Officers Paul Costa and Brandon Wong arrested Lopez. The complaint alleged that officers did not interview the security guard or review the surveillance video, which allegedly showed a Black male assailant. Lopez spent fifteen days in custody, posted a $7,500 bond, spent four months on electronic monitoring, lost two months of income, and recovered his children from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The charges were later dismissed.

The First Amended Complaint asserted claims against the City and County of San Francisco, Officers Costa and Wong, and Sergeant Borremeo for statutory negligence; arrest and detention without probable cause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; California constitutional claims; false arrest; false imprisonment; and violations of California’s Bane Act.

Motion and Analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss. The court considered the police reports because the complaint referred to them, applying the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, which can allow a court to consider a document outside the complaint when the complaint relies on that document.

The court explained that probable cause exists when the circumstances known to the arresting officer would lead a reasonably prudent person to conclude that there was a fair probability or substantial chance that the person arrested committed the crime. An eyewitness identification can establish probable cause when the witness is sufficiently certain. The court found probable cause here because the victim initially described the assailant, then independently identified Lopez the next day. The court held that the differences between the initial description and Lopez’s appearance did not negate probable cause. Because probable cause existed, officers were not constitutionally required to investigate further by reviewing the surveillance video or interviewing other witnesses.

The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects officials unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in the specific circumstances. The court concluded that, even if the right were not clearly established, the parties had not identified precedent placing the legality of this arrest beyond debate. The opinion also states that Lopez did not respond to the City and County’s arguments concerning municipal liability, supervisory liability, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and therefore conceded those arguments.

Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to Lopez’s pursuing them in state court. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order on December 11, 2025.