Strickland v. Ujiri

Background

Alan Strickland moved to dismiss counterclaims brought by Masai Ujiri and Toronto Raptors/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. Ujiri alleged a constitutional excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Strickland argued that the § 1983 claim did not adequately allege excessive force or facts overcoming qualified immunity. He argued that the state-law claims should also be dismissed because Ujiri had not complied with the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA), which generally requires certain claims against public entities or employees to be presented before suit.

Section 1983 Claim

The court held that the excessive-force and qualified-immunity issues could not be resolved from the pleadings. Taking Ujiri’s allegations as true and considering the video evidence incorporated into the counterclaims, the court found a plausible factual basis for an excessive-force claim. The parties had sharply different views of the video, and the court concluded that determining whether Strickland violated the Constitution and whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law required a fuller factual record.

The motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim was DENIED without prejudice to Strickland raising qualified immunity at summary judgment or trial. The court also noted that the CTCA does not apply to a § 1983 claim.

California Claims

The counterclaims alleged that Strickland was an employee of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the scope of his employment. On that basis, the court stated that CTCA compliance appeared to be required unless an exception applied.

The court explained that the CTCA’s purpose is to give the governmental body notice and an opportunity to investigate, evaluate, and potentially resolve a claim. It also recognized exceptions and relief from the claim-filing requirements, including circumstances involving mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and situations in which the statute’s purpose has otherwise been satisfied without prejudice.

The court found that Ujiri’s state-law counterclaims arose from the same events as Strickland’s complaint. Strickland knew the basis for the claims and had an opportunity to resolve them before litigation. Although the counterclaims sought both defensive nominal damages and affirmative punitive damages, the court found Ujiri’s failure to file a timely CTCA claim excusable under the unusual circumstances. The court relied in part on Ujiri’s argument that Strickland delayed bringing his claims and producing body-camera footage that allegedly showed Strickland was the initial aggressor. The court found no apparent prejudice to Strickland in investigating or evaluating the claims.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaims. Strickland was ordered to file an answer to the counterclaims within 21 days after entry of the order.