Laimont v. Rakesh
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-04702
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Laimont v. Rakesh, Judge Chhabria granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion: retaliation was dismissed with leave to amend; section 496 proceeded.
The plaintiffs’ retaliation claim was dismissed with leave to amend. Their California Penal Code section 496 claim remains pending, and the defendants may later renew the section 496 argument as described by the court.
What happened
In Laimont v. Rakesh, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim and their claim under California Penal Code section 496. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs received a 60-day termination notice on April 15, 2019, moved out around June 2019, and filed the complaint on July 14, 2020.
The court ruled that the retaliation claim was filed too late. It also said the plaintiffs had the stronger argument that section 496 covers payments obtained through fraud, not only trafficked goods, but noted that the California Supreme Court was considering that issue in another case.
Judge Chhabria granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. He dismissed the retaliation claim with leave to amend and denied the motion as to the section 496 claim, allowing that claim to proceed for now. The defendants may raise the same section 496 argument later under the conditions described by the court.
The detailed version
- Laimont v. Rakesh · No. 3:20-cv-04702
- Vince Chhabria
- May 28, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that they received a 60-day notice of termination on April 15, 2019, and vacated the unit “on or about” June 2019. They filed the complaint on July 14, 2020. The defendants moved to dismiss the retaliation claim and the claim under California Penal Code section 496.
Retaliation Claim
The court held that the retaliation claim was clearly barred by the statute of limitations, the deadline for filing a claim. Whether that deadline began when the plaintiffs received the 60-day notice or when they moved out, the court concluded that the complaint was filed more than one year later. The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim and dismissed it with leave to amend. Any amended complaint was due by June 11, 2021.
California Penal Code Section 496 Claim
The court denied the motion to dismiss the section 496 claim. Based on the statutory language, the court said the plaintiffs appeared to have the better argument that section 496 applies to payments fraudulently induced through fraud as well as to trafficked goods. The court noted, however, that the California Supreme Court had granted review in a case addressing whether section 496 applies to the defendants’ conduct. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed for now, without prejudice to the defendants raising the same argument in a motion for summary judgment or in a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the California Supreme Court issued its opinion.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The retaliation claim was dismissed with leave to amend, while the section 496 claim was allowed to proceed. A response to an amended complaint, or to the existing complaint if no amendment was filed, was due by June 17, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.