Bennett Montoya v. City of San Francisco, CA.

Background

The order addresses defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action. The remaining first cause of action was based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and alleged violations of Fourteenth Amendment rights, including deprivation of property without due process and denial of equal protection.

Scope of the First Claim

The second amended complaint omitted the previously dismissed claims, but its description of the remaining claim stated only that defendants had deprived the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. The court treated the claim as asserting the same Fourteenth Amendment theory described in the first amended complaint because the plaintiffs represented that the second amended complaint adopted the earlier allegations. The court ruled that the claim was limited to that theory. An attempt to add First Amendment rights as another basis was not permitted because the second amended complaint did not clearly make that change and the court’s earlier order barred adding new claims without express permission.

Claims Against the City and County

The court had previously dismissed the claims against the City and County of San Francisco because the allegations did not sufficiently plead an official policy, practice, or custom under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The court found that the allegations in the second amended complaint were virtually unchanged, conclusory, and deficient. It therefore dismissed the claims against the City and County of San Francisco with prejudice.

Statute of Limitations

The earlier order stated that the parties appeared to agree that acts outside the two-year limitations period were time-barred and directed the plaintiffs to focus on acts occurring after November 9, 2015. The plaintiffs did not follow that direction in the second amended complaint. They argued in their opposition brief that defendants’ conduct continued through several months of 2019 and after the original filing date, but the order does not describe those allegations as having been pleaded adequately in the complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint and gave the plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend by April 3, 2020. Any further amended complaint had to clearly identify and expressly allege defendants’ acts occurring after November 9, 2015, remove the City and County of San Francisco as a defendant, and make the legal basis for the first claim consistent with the first amended complaint. The plaintiffs needed to file a properly noticed motion seeking permission to expand the claim’s legal bases or add new claims or defendants. The court stated that this was likely the plaintiffs’ final opportunity to amend.