Bennett Montoya v. City of San Francisco, CA.

Background

The order addresses defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The underlying first claim alleged that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 by depriving plaintiffs of constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an earlier order, the court concluded that allegations of dissimilar treatment by the City between plaintiffs’ establishment and establishments serving a white audience, together with a possibly racially discriminatory purpose, plausibly stated a claim. The court also instructed plaintiffs to focus on conduct occurring within the applicable two-year limitations period, including conduct after November 9, 2015.

The court had previously dismissed claims against the City and County of San Francisco because plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a basis for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Plaintiffs were permitted to amend, but a later order dismissed the Monell claim with prejudice after plaintiffs did not improve those allegations. The court also dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend and expressly directed plaintiffs to identify acts occurring after November 9, 2015, to drop the City and County of San Francisco as a defendant, and to make the legal basis for the remaining claim consistent with the allegations. The court warned that the next amendment would likely be plaintiffs’ final opportunity.

Motion to dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. Although the complaint identified some actions occurring on or after November 9, 2015, the court found that it otherwise failed to function as a complete, standalone pleading providing the short and plain statement required by Rule 8. Among other problems, it did not adequately identify the claims being asserted against defendants or the relief plaintiffs sought. It also failed to include a separate jurisdictional statement entitled “Jurisdiction” as required by the district’s local rules and did not comply with local formatting requirements.

Plaintiffs argued that the third amended complaint should be treated as a supplemental pleading incorporating the earlier complaints by reference. The court rejected that approach. Under the district’s local rules, an amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed pleading rather than incorporate portions of an earlier pleading. The court also explained that an amended complaint ordinarily replaces the original complaint, so a defendant is entitled to receive clear notice from the operative pleading itself.

The court stated that dismissal with prejudice and closure of the case could be justified because plaintiffs had received multiple opportunities to amend. Nevertheless, it allowed one final amended complaint. The amended complaint had to comply with the order, all prior dismissal orders, and the district’s local rules. The court stated that no further leave to amend would be granted.

Motion for reconsideration

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It construed the filing and a related email as a request under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiffs had not first obtained the required permission to file the motion. The court also found that the request failed on its merits because plaintiffs did not identify new facts, new law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The court concluded that reconsideration was not warranted.

Disposition

The third amended complaint was dismissed. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The court permitted an amended complaint consistent with the order to be filed by February 1, 2021, and stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).