Brasil v. City of San Jose

Background

Plaintiffs Raquel Brasil and Mario Hernandez alleged that defendants George Brown and Erik Brunner attacked them during a road-rage incident on Interstate 280 in July 2021. The complaint alleged that Brown was a San Jose Police Department officer who was off duty during the incident. According to the complaint, Brown requested emergency police assistance, identified himself as a San Jose police officer, punched Brasil, and punched Hernandez while attempting to place him in a headlock. The complaint also alleged that Brown was later charged with felony assault under color of authority, misdemeanor battery, and misdemeanor child endangerment.

The City of San Jose moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims against it. It also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike references to respondeat superior liability in the California state-law claims. Respondeat superior is a theory that can make an employer responsible for an employee’s conduct.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not state a municipal-liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly called a Monell claim. A Monell claim requires nonconclusory allegations of a municipal policy or custom showing deliberate indifference to constitutional rights, along with a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the alleged constitutional violation.

The court found that the other incidents listed in the complaint were not meaningfully connected to the events involving Brasil and Hernandez. The incidents did not plausibly show that San Jose had notice of relevant misconduct by off-duty police officers or that the City was deliberately indifferent in investigating or disciplining officers. The court also found the failure-to-train allegations insufficient because the complaint did not allege facts showing a pattern of similar violations by inadequately trained employees.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Monell claim against San Jose with leave to amend. It granted leave to amend the claims against San Jose, requiring any amended complaint to be consistent with the order and stating that plaintiffs could not add new claims or parties without the court’s prior approval. The deadline to amend was November 28, 2022. The court stated that failure to amend by that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice of the pertinent claims under Rule 41(b).

The court declined to take up the state-law claims until a federal claim was plausibly alleged against San Jose. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the City’s motion to strike beyond this decision not to address the state-law claims at that stage. The hearing scheduled for November 3, 2022, was vacated.