Schiff v. City and County of San Francisco
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03260-YGR
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Schiff v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Rogers granted the dismissal motion in part, allowing limited amendments to several claims.
The ruling affected the thirteen police-officer plaintiffs and the defendants, including the City and County of San Francisco, Breed, Farrell, Suhr, Scott, and other entities named in the complaint. It dismissed specified claims, allowed limited amendments, and left other claims outside the motion.
What happened
Schiff v. City and County of San Francisco concerns thirteen San Francisco police officers who alleged they were denied promotions in favor of lower-scoring minority and female candidates through a biased promotional process using “banding.” The defendants moved to dismiss some of the claims for failing to state a legally valid claim.
The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss claims against entities other than the City and County of San Francisco and claims against certain individual defendants. The court also required amendments to the claim under federal law section 1985 and to the challenge under California Constitution Proposition 209. The court allowed only an amendment to the requested remedy for the declaratory-relief claim.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the motion to dismiss without permission to amend certain claims, granted it with permission to amend the section 1985 and Proposition 209 claims, and granted it with permission to amend only the requested remedy for declaratory relief. The plaintiffs had to file an amended complaint by January 24, 2020.
The detailed version
- Schiff v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 4:19-cv-03260-YGR
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 8, 2020
Background
Thirteen plaintiffs—twelve white male San Francisco Police Department officers and one white female officer—alleged that they were passed over for promotions in favor of lower-scoring minority and female candidates in a promotional process that used a version of “banding.” Their First Amended Complaint asserted seven claims against various defendants. The defendants sought dismissal of only some claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The opinion’s footnote states that the motion did not seek dismissal of the section 1981 claim against Scott and Suhr in their individual capacities, the section 1983 claim against Scott and Suhr in their individual capacities, or the Title VII claim against the City.
Rulings
The court ruled that the claims against Breed, Farrell, Suhr, and Scott in their official capacities duplicated the claims against the City. An official-capacity claim against a local official is generally treated as a claim against the government entity. The court therefore granted dismissal of those claims without leave to amend.
The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against all entities named in the complaint other than the City and County of San Francisco. They also agreed to dismiss their section 1981 and section 1983 claims against Breed and Farrell in their individual capacities. The court’s conclusion granted the motion without leave to amend as to those claims and defendants.
For the section 1985 claim, the plaintiffs agreed that they needed to amend the complaint. The court granted the motion with leave to amend to allege a legally cognizable basis for that claim, if it could be pleaded consistently with the plaintiffs’ obligations under Rule 11.
The court held that the complaint did not allege enough facts for a facial challenge under Article I, Section 31 of the California Constitution, commonly called Proposition 209. The court also stated that the complaint did not allege facts showing that the City’s policy was applied to the plaintiffs in a way that violated Proposition 209. The court granted leave to amend to allege an as-applied challenge, to the extent such a claim could be pleaded consistently with Rule 11.
The plaintiffs conceded that declaratory relief was not an independent cause of action and could be obtained through their other claims. The court therefore granted dismissal of the Seventh Cause of Action with leave to amend only the prayer for relief—the portion of the complaint stating what remedy the plaintiffs seek.
Disposition and Next Steps
The motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend as to claims against entities other than the City, claims against Breed, Farrell, Suhr, and Scott in their official capacities, and the section 1981 and section 1983 claims against Breed and Farrell in their individual capacities. It was granted with leave to amend as to the section 1985 claim and the Proposition 209 claim, and granted with leave to amend only the prayer for relief for the declaratory-relief claim.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by January 24, 2020. No new claims or parties could be added without the court’s permission or the defendants’ stipulation. The court also set an initial case-management conference for March 2, 2020, and ordered defendants to respond within 21 days after the amended complaint was filed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.