Salah v. Contra Costa Children and Family Services
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-00470
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Salah v. Contra Costa Children and Family Services (CFS), Judge Rogers granted leave to file a third amended complaint and dismissed two defendants without prejudice.
Khlood Khalih Salah, the defendants she sought to dismiss, and the county defendants who were ordered to respond to the third amended complaint.
What happened
In Salah v. Contra Costa Children and Family Services (CFS), Khlood Khalih Salah asked to file a third amended complaint. The defendants questioned the clarity and sufficiency of her allegations and raised a defense that may prevent relitigation of issues already decided.
The court granted Salah’s motion for leave to amend. It found that the proposed amendment was not clearly futile, but did not decide whether the allegations were sufficient or definite enough to state claims. The court also granted Salah’s request to dismiss David Twa and Constance Bravos without prejudice.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Salah to file the third amended complaint by April 7, 2020, and ordered the county defendants to respond by April 28, 2020. The order did not decide the merits of Salah’s claims.
The detailed version
- Salah v. Contra Costa Children and Family Services · No. 4:18-cv-00470
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 25, 2020
Background
Khlood Khalih Salah moved for leave to file a proposed third amended complaint. The opposition questioned the sufficiency and clarity of her allegations and raised collateral estoppel, a legal doctrine that can prevent a party from relitigating an issue decided in an earlier proceeding. The court treated those arguments as an assertion that amendment would be futile.
Ruling
The court granted Salah’s motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). It concluded that the proposed amendment was not futile on its face because federal civil-rights claims may be alleged under appropriate circumstances for conduct occurring during state dependency proceedings. The court expressly made no finding about whether Salah’s allegations were sufficiently clear or legally adequate to state claims. It said those issues were better addressed in a later pleading or a motion for summary judgment.
The court cautioned that failure to allege a clear and sufficient legal and factual basis for liability against each defendant could result in dismissal. It also granted Salah’s request to dismiss without prejudice the previously named defendants David Twa and Constance Bravos. The text indicates that Salah also sought to dismiss Kathy Gallagher, but the provided opinion text does not state the court’s disposition of that request.
Deadlines and effect
Salah was ordered to file the third amended complaint by April 7,
- The listed county defendants—Contra Costa County, Suzanne Porter, Vanessa Rezos, Tandrea Thysell, Chau Nguyen, Peggy Henderson, John Boylan, Brittanie Mills, Joan Miller, Kathy Marsh, and Kathy Gallagher—were ordered to respond by April 28,
- The order terminated Docket No.
- It did not decide whether Salah’s claims would ultimately succeed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.