Holland v. City of San Francisco

Background

The amended complaint asserted negligence and malicious prosecution against Allied Universal Security Services. The plaintiffs alleged that Allied was legally responsible for the conduct of its employee, security guard Mark Hankins.

According to the allegations, Hankins called 911 on December 6, 2018, and reported that the plaintiffs had committed a commercial burglary at Stonestown Mall. The plaintiffs alleged that they had instead walked to a nearby McDonald’s to eat and later returned to their parked cars. They further alleged that Hankins pointed them out to police and falsely stated that he had seen them exiting the former Macy’s department store. The plaintiffs alleged that Hankins knew those statements were false.

The plaintiffs were arrested and criminally charged. The charges were dismissed after the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office reviewed body-camera footage. The complaint alleged that Holland was detained in the San Francisco County Jail for more than two months and that Nelson was detained there for approximately two weeks.

Negligence claim

Allied moved to dismiss both claims. The plaintiffs’ opposition agreed that the negligence claim should be dismissed. The court therefore granted Allied’s motion to dismiss the ninth cause of action for negligence.

Malicious-prosecution claim

Allied argued that the malicious-prosecution claim was inadequately pleaded because the plaintiffs had not alleged that Allied or Hankins acted with malice or lacked probable cause. The plaintiffs responded that their allegations that Hankins knowingly made a false report to police satisfied those requirements.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs. It explained that a malicious-prosecution claim against a private person requires an allegation that the defendant sought police or prosecutorial authorities and falsely reported facts indicating that the plaintiff committed a crime. The court held that the alleged knowing false report was sufficient to plead malice and lack of probable cause.

The court rejected Allied’s additional arguments that California Civil Code section 47 barred the claim and that the allegations had to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court stated that section 47 does not affect malicious-prosecution actions and found that the amended complaint alleged the relevant who, what, and when of the report in any event.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied in part Allied’s motion to dismiss. The motion was granted as to the negligence claim and denied as to the malicious-prosecution claim.