Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon v. County of San Mateo

Background

Sarah Gatliff filed an amended complaint concerning the fatal police shooting of her mother, Sandra Harmon, in Half Moon Bay, California. The opinion says the amended complaint asserted four claims. Gatliff brought claims both as Harmon’s successor in interest—that is, as someone seeking to act for Harmon’s estate—and on her own behalf. The opinion also identifies a state wrongful-death/negligence-per-se claim.

Gatliff conceded that the amended complaint asserted no causes of action against Carlos Bolanos, Stephen Wagstaffe, James Goulart, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, or the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. The court therefore dismissed those defendants. The court also struck immaterial allegations concerning abandoned claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Reasons for the ruling

The court dismissed Gatliff’s claims as Harmon’s successor in interest for lack of standing, meaning she had not shown a sufficient legal basis to bring those claims. California law required her to file an affidavit or declaration stating that she was Harmon’s successor in interest, or was authorized to act for that successor, along with facts supporting that statement. The court found that her declaration lacked the required supporting facts. The declaration was dated two days before the purported assignment of successor-in-interest rights from Harmon’s husband, so it could not include facts about that assignment.

The court also found that Gatliff had not alleged enough facts to establish her own standing to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that a biological relationship, close relationship, or affection alone was insufficient. Instead, the allegations had to show an enduring relationship reflecting an assumption of parental responsibility. The amended complaint alleged that Harmon was a loving mother and that Gatliff suffered the loss of her love, affection, society, and moral support, but the court found those allegations did not show that Harmon had been involved in Gatliff’s upbringing or had remained in consistent contact with her throughout her life.

The court stated that, even if the state claim had been properly pleaded, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim in the same case—once the federal claims were dismissed. The court also found independent pleading problems. It said California law does not recognize “negligence per se” as a separate cause of action. If the claim were treated only as a wrongful-death claim, the court said Harmon’s husband was a known heir and a necessary party who had not been joined. Gatliff had not argued that joining him was not feasible.

Disposition

The order is titled “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss.” It dismissed the defendants against whom no claims were asserted, dismissed the successor-in-interest claims for lack of standing, and addressed the defects in Gatliff’s personal federal claims and state claim. The court ordered that an amended complaint be filed within 21 days of the order, and that defendants respond within 21 days after the amended complaint was filed. The defendants’ request for judicial notice was denied as moot because the court did not need to consider the documents. The opinion does not state that any dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.