Bryant v. Newsom

Background

Dana Bryant and other plaintiffs sued Sundari Mase and other defendants. The opinion discusses measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and refers to the plaintiffs’ allegations involving county and local officials. It also discusses a Fourth Amendment seizure theory and the plaintiffs’ statement that the lawsuit was based on municipal liability under Monell. The plaintiffs indicated that an amended complaint would clarify the roles of the defendants and plead facts concerning the liability of the Santa Rosa Police Department.

Court’s analysis

The court granted the motions to dismiss because the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the pandemic-related measures exceeded the broad authority and latitude of county and local officials addressing the changing and fact-specific problem of pandemic restrictions.

The court also stated that the complaint did not adequately allege the loss of a possessory interest in property, which the court identified as necessary for a Fourth Amendment seizure claim. More generally, the court criticized the complaint for including numerous legal theories without meaningfully analyzing which claims could be viable. It further criticized the plaintiffs’ decision to name many individual defendants and noted the need to clarify those defendants’ roles. The court warned the plaintiffs and their counsel that frivolous claims in an amended complaint could result in sanctions.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. An amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order, and responses were due 21 days after the amended complaint was filed. The court denied the request for judicial notice as moot. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.