Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Anna Mishina Shteerman represented herself in claims against the City and County of San Francisco, individual city officials and employees, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., and its agent Edward Beggs. She alleged that, beginning in 2015, city defendants subjected her to unlawful fines, fees, and code-violation notices and used other misconduct to force the sale of her two-family property on March 11, 2021. She alleged that the buyer was city employee Brendan Dwyer.

Shteerman asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for theft, due process and equal protection violations, discrimination, defamation, fraud, breach of duty, and an unconstitutional taking. She also asserted claims under California Penal Code § 487 and California Civil Code §§ 51, 45, 1709, and 2079.16. The City and Sotheby’s defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, and individual City defendants moved to dismiss.

Statute of Limitations

The court held that the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations because the time bar was apparent from the complaint. The parties agreed that the § 1983 claims had a two-year limitations period. The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that each state-law claim had a valid private right of action and explained that those claims had limitations periods ranging from one to three years.

The court determined that the claims accrued—that is, the limitations periods began—by March 11, 2021, at the latest. According to the complaint, Shteerman knew or had reason to know by the time of the sale that she was being subjected to the allegedly baseless fines and notices. Her later discovery of the buyer’s alleged identity or other alleged motives did not delay accrual because she did not need to know the full extent of the injury. The court also found that the complaint did not support extending the deadlines based on continuing violations, concealment, or Shteerman’s claimed post-traumatic stress disorder.

Other Arguments and Rulings

City defendants raised a challenge to Shteerman’s standing to sue. The court declined to dismiss on that ground because the issue was intertwined with the merits and involved disputed facts that could not be resolved on the existing record at this stage. Because the limitations issue was case-dispositive, the court declined to reach the defendants’ other arguments.

The court denied the defendants’ requests for judicial notice as moot because the order did not rely on the attached materials.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because the record did not clearly establish that amendment would be futile. Shteerman may file an amended complaint by October 19, 2026, but may not add claims or parties without permission from the court or agreement of the parties. If she does not file an amended complaint by that date, the complaint will remain dismissed with prejudice, judgment will be entered for the defendants, and the case will be closed.