B. v. City of Oakland
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-07078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Zelda B. v. City of Oakland, Judge Ryu denied plaintiffs’ request for relief from California’s government-claim filing requirements and denied their transfer request.
The six plaintiffs, including Zelda B., Phyllis A. Thomas, Charles A. Thomas, Sr., Brian A. Thomas, Racheal D. Colston, and Cynthia M., were affected by the denial of the requested federal-court relief and transfer. The order also concerned the City of Oakland, Oakland Unified School District, and LaRichea Smith as defendants.
What happened
In Zelda B., et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., six plaintiffs alleged constitutional, disability, and state-law violations arising from an incident at a high school basketball game. They said LaRichea Smith confronted them, used a racial slur, and physically attacked Charles A. Thomas, Sr.
The plaintiffs filed government tort claims more than six months after the February 15, 2020 incident. Oakland rejected the claims as untimely, and Oakland Unified School District rejected some claims and denied the adult plaintiffs’ requests to file late claims. The plaintiffs asked the federal court for relief from the claim-filing requirement and asked it to transfer the matter to a California Superior Court.
Judge Ryu denied both requests. She ruled that California law requires this type of petition to be filed in a California Superior Court and that the plaintiffs had not identified authority allowing the federal court to transfer it. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ civil-rights, disability, or state-law claims.
The detailed version
- B. v. City of Oakland · No. 4:21-cv-07078
- Donna Ryu
- Dec. 16, 2021
Background
Phyllis A. Thomas and Charles A. Thomas, Sr., their adult children, and two minor grandchildren brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged constitutional violations during a February 15, 2020 basketball game at McClymonds High School in Oakland, California. The complaint also asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state-law claims under California’s Ralph Civil Rights Act, Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress law.
The complaint alleged that LaRichea Smith, whom the plaintiffs believed was an Oakland employee and authorized agent of Oakland Unified School District, confronted Charles A. Thomas, Sr., Phyllis A. Thomas, and Racheal D. Colston in a section reserved for people with disabilities. According to the complaint, Smith used a racial slur, made derogatory comments about the plaintiffs’ African-American ancestry, and later attacked Charles A. Thomas, Sr., knocking his phone from his hand. The other plaintiffs allegedly witnessed the incident.
Government-claim requirements
California generally requires a person seeking money damages from a public entity to present a written claim before filing suit. A claim for personal injury ordinarily must be presented within six months after the claim arises. The plaintiffs presented claims to Oakland and Oakland Unified School District on February 12, 2021, more than six months after the incident. Oakland rejected the claims as untimely. Oakland also denied the plaintiffs’ applications to present late claims. Oakland Unified rejected the claims as untimely, accepted late-claim applications for Zelda B. and Cynthia M., and denied the adult plaintiffs’ late-claim applications.
The plaintiffs asked the federal court for relief under California Government Code section 946.6 from the claim-filing requirement in section 945.4. They also asked the court to transfer the request to a California Superior Court.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that section 946.6 requires a petition for relief from the claim-filing requirement to be filed in a California Superior Court that would be a proper court for the related action. The federal court therefore lacked authority to grant the requested relief. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not meaningfully dispute the state-court filing requirement and did not identify a federal rule or other authority permitting the requested transfer.
The court also noted that the claim-presentation requirement applies only to the state-law claims, not to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Disposition
Judge Donna Ryu denied the plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the California government tort-claim filing requirements. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request to transfer the motion to state court. The order did not resolve whether the alleged constitutional, disability, or state-law violations occurred or whether the plaintiffs would ultimately prevail on those claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.