G. v. City of Lafayette

Background

Audrey G., Devin G., and Jesse B., minors, and James Larry Benton, Sr. alleged that Lafayette police officers followed their vehicle from a retail store onto Highway 24 on May 6, 2020. According to the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs are African American, Benton was driving, and the officers swerved in front of and behind the vehicle, drove close to its rear bumper, shined a bright spotlight into it, and engaged in other dangerous maneuvers while traveling about 65 miles per hour. The plaintiffs alleged that Benton feared losing control and injuring the children, who were terrified and traumatized.

The plaintiffs asserted nine causes of action based on alleged civil-rights violations and related state-law claims. The named defendants were the City of Lafayette, Officer White, Police Chief Ben D. Alldritt, and Contra Costa County. The officers who allegedly drove the police vehicles were not identified.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court generally accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor, but it did not accept conclusory statements or unsupported inferences. The court also considered whether the alleged defects could be corrected by amending the complaint.

Section 1983 claim

The plaintiffs brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer White. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights; it does not itself create a separate substantive right.

The court considered the alleged Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and Fourteenth Amendment due-process and equal-protection rights. It held that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a Fourth Amendment search because police may look through a vehicle’s windows, including with a flashlight, without conducting a search under the circumstances alleged. The court also held that the complaint did not adequately allege a seizure because it did not state that the police restricted Benton’s or the passengers’ freedom of movement.

The due-process claim also failed because the plaintiffs identified their liberty interest as freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, which the court said must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. The equal-protection claim failed because the complaint did not allege facts plausibly showing that the officers acted with discriminatory intent. The court further held that the complaint did not allege facts showing Officer White’s personal involvement: it did not state that he was present, inside one of the vehicles, interacting with the plaintiffs, or on duty.

The Section 1983 claim against White was dismissed without prejudice.

Benton’s claims against Contra Costa County

Under the California Government Claims Act, a claim for personal injury against a public entity generally must be filed within six months after the claim accrues. The plaintiffs filed their claims with Contra Costa County nearly one year after the incident. The court concluded that Benton did not receive permission to file a late claim and was not entitled to delay the filing deadline under the delayed-discovery rule because he knew of the claim when the incident occurred.

Benton’s claims against Contra Costa County were dismissed with prejudice.

Ralph Civil Rights Act claim

The Ralph Civil Rights Act prohibits violence or threats of violence because of a protected characteristic, including race. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that the officers were motivated by their perception of the plaintiffs’ race. The plaintiffs’ proposed inference that a retail store suspected them because of their race and that the officers adopted that suspicion was unsupported by facts in the complaint.

The Ralph Act claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim

The plaintiffs based their Bane Act claim on the alleged Fourth Amendment violations. The court held that, because the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a constitutional violation, the Bane Act claim lacked a basis. The court also held that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing that any defendant acted with the specific intent to violate their rights.

The Bane Act claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Unruh Civil Rights Act claim

The Unruh Act concerns discrimination by business establishments. The plaintiffs brought this claim against Officer White and unnamed defendants, not against a business. The court also found that the complaint did not allege that the police affected the plaintiffs’ access to the retail store; the alleged police conduct occurred after the plaintiffs had left the store.

The Unruh Act claim against the defendants was dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that a claim based on denied equal access to the store would need to be asserted against the store, which was not a defendant in this case.

Negligent retention, supervision, training, and discipline

The plaintiffs asserted this claim against the Lafayette Police Department and Alldritt. The court noted that the Lafayette Police Department was not a named defendant. It held that the complaint did not identify a statute supporting direct liability for the claim and did not allege specific facts supporting the claim against Alldritt. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to supply missing factual and legal support through their opposition brief.

This claim was dismissed without prejudice against the Lafayette Police Department and Alldritt.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court held that the alleged combination of swerving around the vehicle, shining a spotlight inside it, and driving close to its rear bumper at 65 miles per hour plausibly suggested reckless disregard for causing emotional distress. The plaintiffs also alleged severe emotional distress, and the defendants did not challenge the required harm and causation elements.

The claim could proceed against the unidentified officers and the public-entity defendants. It could not proceed against White because the complaint did not adequately allege his involvement, and the plaintiffs did not allege specific acts by Alldritt. The court also held that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded ratification by a public entity but concluded that the entities could plausibly be vicariously liable under California Government Code section 815.2.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court stated that California does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort; it is treated as a negligence claim. Because the claim duplicated the plaintiffs’ negligence claim, it was dismissed with prejudice.

Assault

The court held that assault requires facts showing that the defendant intended to cause harmful or offensive contact or intended to place the plaintiff in immediate fear of such contact. The complaint alleged reckless conduct but did not allege facts showing the required intent by White or the other officers.

The assault claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Negligence

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the officers owed them a duty because the officers’ affirmative conduct may have created or increased a danger. The alleged driving maneuvers and spotlight use were sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference that the officers increased the risk to the plaintiffs.

The negligence claim could proceed against the unidentified officers and the public-entity defendants. It could not proceed against White or Alldritt for the reasons stated in the discussion of the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint as to all claims except intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence against the public-entity defendants and the unidentified officers. The plaintiffs received leave to amend every cause of action except the Unruh Act and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, and Benton’s claims against Contra Costa County, which were dismissed with prejudice. Any amended complaint was due by December 17, 2021.