Johansen v. County of Napa

Background

The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. The order addresses the second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, as well as plaintiffs’ proposed wrongful-death claims.

Fourteenth Amendment claim

The court addressed a Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by Kurt Nylander, identified as the decedent’s uncle, and Kristine Brott, identified as the decedent’s aunt. The court stated that the claim was based on excessive force. Under the court’s analysis, excessive-force allegations arising during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free person are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which is the specific constitutional provision addressing that conduct. The Fourteenth Amendment claim was therefore duplicative and could not be sustained.

The court also stated that only the decedent’s parents, children, personal representative, or successor in interest could bring a substantive due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Nylander and Brott were the decedent’s uncle and aunt and did not fulfill those roles, the court granted the motion as to this claim without leave to amend.

County liability under Section 1983

The defendants argued that the claims for municipal liability under Section 1983, commonly called Monell liability, were conclusory and lacked facts showing plausible entitlement to relief. The court agreed that the complaint did not allege specific facts showing the essential elements of liability based on an unconstitutional policy or custom. The court explained that an isolated event ordinarily is not enough to establish a municipal practice or custom, which must be sufficiently persistent and widespread or have enough duration, frequency, and consistency to become a traditional way of carrying out policy.

The court also found the allegations concerning ratification insufficient. The complaint’s references to District Attorney Allison Haley were described as insufficient and confusing, including because it was unclear whether plaintiffs intended to name her as a defendant and whether immunity defenses would apply. The court granted the motion on these grounds with leave to amend. It noted that discovery might be necessary before plaintiffs could pursue some Monell theories and stated that this issue could be addressed at the case-management conference.

Wrongful-death claims

The defendants argued that plaintiffs should not be allowed to amend the complaint to add a wrongful-death claim in addition to a Section 1983 claim. The court denied the motion on that basis, explaining that wrongful-death and Section 1983 claims are independent even when they rely on the same or similar facts.

The court nevertheless granted the motion with leave to amend because the complaint needed to separate the state wrongful-death claim from the federal claim if plaintiffs were asserting a distinct cause of action. The court also stated that plaintiffs could amend to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act, which it said was required. The court described the elements of a wrongful-death claim as a wrongful act or tort, the resulting death, and damages consisting of the heirs’ financial loss.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Rogers granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion without leave to amend as to the uncle and aunt’s Fourteenth Amendment claim; granted the motion with leave to amend as to the Monell and wrongful-death pleading deficiencies; and denied the defendants’ argument that plaintiffs could not amend to bring a wrongful-death claim. Plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended complaint within 21 days, and defendants were ordered to respond within 21 days after that. The court also stated that defendants could not raise new arguments that could have been made during the motion round addressed by the order.