Trujillo-Lopez v. City of Vallejo

Background

Luis Trujillo-Lopez alleged that, on October 28, 2018, Officer Robert DeMarco assaulted him while Vallejo Police Department officers were towing Kenny Santiago’s van. According to the complaint, DeMarco pushed Trujillo-Lopez to the ground and struck him with a baton, causing injuries including a fractured jaw and elbow. Officers handcuffed him, took him to a hospital, and then took him to jail. He was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer and was later convicted of disturbing the peace.

Trujillo-Lopez sued the City of Vallejo, the Vallejo Police Department, DeMarco, Chief Andrew Bidou, and Does 1–100. His claims included conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and five California state-law claims: false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, negligent training, hiring, retention and supervision, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and they also filed a special motion to strike the defamation claim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Rulings on the Federal Claims

The court granted dismissal of the Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim without leave to amend. The court applied qualified immunity, which protects government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. It concluded that the law was not clearly established in October 2018 on whether the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine applied to Section 1985(3) claims involving officers of the same legal entity acting in their official capacities. The court found amendment would be futile because Trujillo-Lopez could not plead facts overcoming qualified immunity.

Because a Section 1986 claim requires a valid Section 1985 claim, the court also granted dismissal of the Section 1986 claim without leave to amend.

The court granted dismissal of the Section 1983 municipal-liability, or Monell, claim with leave to amend. Trujillo-Lopez alleged that the City, the Vallejo Police Department, and Bidou tolerated or encouraged excessive force through inadequate supervision, discipline, training, and policies. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege that a municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind his injuries. It also found the allegations about a custom of excessive force, a policy of inaction, and failure to train were too conclusory and lacked supporting facts. The court granted leave to amend the Monell claim. It also granted leave to clarify whether Bidou was sued in his individual or official capacity. If Bidou was sued only in his official capacity, the court stated that he would be a redundant defendant because the City was also named.

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against the Vallejo Police Department, concluding that the department was a separately suable entity under applicable California law.

The court granted dismissal of the assault-and-battery claim with leave to amend. It stated that Section 1983 generally provides a remedy for constitutional violations, not ordinary state-law duties of care, and directed that any amended complaint identify legal authority showing that assault and battery could be recognized as a federal claim under Section 1983.

The court granted dismissal of the false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims without leave to amend. It applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, which generally bars a damages claim when success would necessarily imply that an existing criminal conviction is invalid. The court concluded that success on these claims would call into question whether DeMarco had probable cause for the conduct underlying Trujillo-Lopez’s disturbing-the-peace conviction.

State-Law Claims

The court granted dismissal of all five state-law claims without leave to amend because Trujillo-Lopez did not comply with California’s Government Claims Act. The Act required him to present his claim within six months of the October 28, 2018 incident. He presented it to the City on June 6, 2019, seven months after the claims accrued. The City rejected it as untimely, denied his later application to present a late claim, and informed him that he needed to petition a court for relief from the claims-presentation requirement. He did not file that petition before bringing this action. The court concluded that he could not plead facts showing compliance and therefore denied leave to amend these claims.

Anti-SLAPP Motion and Attorneys’ Fees

Although the court dismissed the defamation claim under the Government Claims Act, it still ruled on the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion because California law required a ruling on the merits when defendants sought fees. An anti-SLAPP motion is a procedure for striking a claim arising from protected speech or petitioning activity. The court found that the police reports and related statements by DeMarco and Bidou were made in connection with a potential prosecution and were protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. It also found that Trujillo-Lopez could not establish a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim because that claim was barred by his failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. The court therefore granted the anti-SLAPP motion and awarded defendants $4,663 in attorneys’ fees for work related to that motion.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), with leave to amend where specified. The court granted dismissal without leave to amend for the Section 1985, Section 1986, false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and state-law claims; granted dismissal with leave to amend for the Monell and assault-and-battery claims; denied dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against the Vallejo Police Department; granted leave to clarify Bidou’s capacity; and granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP attorneys’ fee request for $4,663. An amended complaint, if filed, was due by December 2, 2022.