Tenwinkle v. Richardsons Bay Regional Agency

Background

Louis Joseph Tenwinkle alleged that he owned a Professional Vessel Recovery Vessel. He alleged that, on November 22, 2019, Harbormaster Curtis Havel boarded the vessel without a warrant, designated it as “marine debris,” and towed it to a debris dock. According to the complaint, the vessel fell onto a concrete ramp when the tide subsided and was seriously damaged. Tenwinkle also alleged that the defendants did not follow local ordinances and had a custom and policy of violating them.

Tenwinkle’s complaint alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, an unconstitutional taking, and due process. The court construed those claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a way to seek damages or other relief for certain constitutional violations by state actors. The complaint also asserted state-law claims for negligence and conversion. The motion to dismiss was filed by Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency and Curtis Havel. The opinion states that Tenwinkle also named the City of Sausalito and the Army Corps of Engineers, but the motion addressed in this order was filed by the agency and Havel.

Discovery and judicial notice

Tenwinkle asked for 120 additional days to conduct discovery before responding to the motion. The court denied that request, finding that discovery was not necessary to resolve the issues raised by the motion.

The defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of several documents. The court denied as moot the request concerning the complaint because the complaint was already part of the record. The court granted the request to take judicial notice of the existence of two claim-rejection documents and the dates on which they were issued. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts without requiring proof when they are not reasonably disputable.

Federal claims

The defendants argued that Tenwinkle’s federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Because § 1983 does not contain its own limitations period, the court applied California’s two-year period for personal-injury claims. The alleged conduct occurred on November 22, 2019, and Tenwinkle filed the complaint on November 23, 2021, one day after the court determined that the limitations period had expired.

The court noted that Tenwinkle had not alleged facts explaining why the limitations period should be extended, a concept known as tolling. Because the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile, it dismissed the federal claims with leave to amend so Tenwinkle could plead facts supporting tolling.

The defendants also argued that the complaint did not specify whether its claims against Havel were brought against him in his official or individual capacity. The court discussed Tenwinkle’s request for prospective injunctive relief, meaning an order aimed at preventing future conduct. It concluded that the complaint did not allege facts showing a sufficient likelihood that Tenwinkle would be wronged again in a similar way. The court instructed that, if Tenwinkle amended the complaint, he should not plead injunctive relief as a separate cause of action but should allege facts supporting that remedy.

State-law claims

The court dismissed the state-law claims against the defendants based on California’s Government Claims Act. That law requires a claim for money or damages against a local public agency to be presented to the agency and rejected before suit. It also requires a lawsuit to be filed within six months after the public entity rejects the claim.

The rejection notices submitted by the defendants were dated July 6, 2020, and July 7, 2020. Tenwinkle filed this lawsuit on November 23, 2021, after the six-month period had expired. He did not address this argument in his response or plead facts supporting tolling. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the state-law claims on that basis, but granted Tenwinkle leave to amend. Because this ruling resolved the state-law claims, the court did not reach the defendants’ alternative dismissal arguments; the defendants may renew those arguments if Tenwinkle files an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims Tenwinkle asserted against them and granted leave to amend. An amended complaint against Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency and Havel was due by September 2, 2022. The court stated that, if Tenwinkle did not file one by that date, it would dismiss the claims against those defendants for failure to prosecute. The court also scheduled an initial case management conference for October 28, 2022.