Prebilich v. City of Cotati

Background

Nancy Prebilich was a partner in a demonstration farm with live animals within the City of Cotati. Cotati told her that the animals had to be removed for a construction project. The animals were not removed, and Prebilich lost physical possession of them. She requested approximately $31,000 for their value, while city manager Damien O’Bid offered approximately $11,000.

Prebilich asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning due process and equal protection, as well as California claims for conversion and fraud by misrepresentation or concealment. She withdrew her equal-protection claim alleging treatment as a "class of one" and did not oppose dismissal of claims against O’Bid in his official capacity.

Federal Claims Against the City

The court dismissed all § 1983 claims against Cotati. Section 1983 allows claims for violations of federal rights by state or local actors, but a city is generally liable only for its own policy, practice, or custom—not simply because an employee allegedly violated someone’s rights. The court found that the complaint alleged, at most, one constitutional deprivation and did not plausibly allege a sufficiently established pattern, practice, or custom by Cotati.

Claims Against O’Bid

The court did not decide whether O’Bid was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. Qualified immunity can protect a public official from a lawsuit unless the alleged facts show both a constitutional violation and violation of a right that was clearly established at the time. The court found that the complaint described the due-process and equal-protection claims too generally and lacked enough factual detail to determine whether Prebilich suffered an injury to a clearly established right. The court deferred the immunity question pending an amended complaint.

State-Law Claims and Case Management

Because the federal claims had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—over the California claims at that time.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, allowing Prebilich to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by January 20, 2022. Discovery was stayed pending further order, and the parties were directed to report the outcome of mediation. The court also warned that future filings violating page-limit, font-size, or formatting requirements could be stricken from the docket.