Vellenoweth v. City of Napa

Background

Terri Vellenoweth and Gary Vellenoweth sued the City of Napa and individual officers after their son, Jeremy James Vellenoweth, was shot by Napa police on October 6, 2021, and died on October 26, 2021. According to the complaint, the parents found their son in the driveway of his home holding a shotgun and appearing agitated and under the influence of alcohol. They called police for assistance. The parents alleged that Officer Dominic Deguillo and possibly other officers began firing within seconds of arriving, despite the parents’ warnings and without a genuine attempt to de-escalate.

The complaint asserted seven claims, including an unreasonable-seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipal liability based on an alleged City policy or custom, substantive due process, wrongful death, negligent training and selection, bystander liability, and survivorship. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked authority to assert claims on their son’s behalf and had not alleged enough facts to support several claims.

Late Opposition

The plaintiffs filed their opposition nine days late. They explained that their lawyer mistakenly believed the deadline was 21 days before the hearing. The court nevertheless considered the filing to facilitate a decision on the merits, while warning that future unexplained violations of the local rules might not be excused. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing because it concluded that oral argument was unnecessary.

Authority to Assert Claims for the Decedent

Under California law, a claim that survives a person’s death may be pursued by the decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest. California law also requires an executed and filed affidavit or declaration establishing the person’s authority and stating that no other person has a superior right to bring or continue the action.

The complaint did not include the required declaration. The plaintiffs did not dispute that omission. The court concluded that they therefore had not shown that no other person had a superior right to pursue the claims. The court treated this omission as one of several reasons to dismiss the first, second, fifth, and seventh claims and directed the plaintiffs to provide proof of compliance with the statute in any amended complaint.

First Claim: Unreasonable Seizure

The first claim alleged that the decedent’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure was violated. The court explained that Fourth Amendment rights generally belong to the person whose rights were allegedly violated. Survivors may assert such a claim on the decedent’s behalf when state law authorizes a survival action.

The court found no basis for the parents to assert an unreasonable-seizure claim in their own individual capacities because they did not allege that police seized or used force against them. The plaintiffs appeared to acknowledge that they did not intend to seek damages individually under this claim. The court dismissed any unreasonable-seizure claims not asserted on the decedent’s behalf, but granted leave to amend so the plaintiffs could clarify which claims they pursued on the decedent’s behalf and which they pursued individually. The court stated that amendment would not salvage the claim in the parents’ individual capacities.

Second Claim: Municipal Liability

A municipality generally cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because one of its employees caused an injury. A plaintiff must identify a municipal policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation. The plaintiffs alleged that Napa had an unwritten “shoot to kill” policy or custom, relying primarily on five officer-involved shootings since 2015 that allegedly resulted in deaths.

The court held that the complaint lacked enough detail about those other incidents to show a persistent and widespread City policy rather than isolated or sporadic events. The complaint also did not adequately plead that the City’s training was deliberately indifferent to constitutional rights, that inadequate training was the moving force behind the injury, or that a final policymaker authorized or ratified the officers’ conduct. The court found that the allegations about a code of silence and failures to discipline or change training policies were conclusory and unsupported by concrete facts. It dismissed the second claim, with leave to amend.

Fifth Claim: Negligent Training and Selection

The court explained that California public-entity tort liability depends on an authorizing statute and that a complaint must plead the statutory basis for the entity’s liability. The complaint did not identify a statutory basis for the City’s direct liability for training and selection. The plaintiffs relied on California Government Code section 815.2 only in their opposition and did not plead specific facts supporting liability under that provision. The court dismissed the fifth claim, with leave to amend.

Seventh Claim: Survivorship

The court stated that survivorship is not ordinarily an independent claim by itself. A survival claim may nevertheless be proper for damages the decedent experienced before death, such as pain and suffering or property damage. The complaint sought damages for the decedent’s pain and suffering, personal-property damage, and related losses, but it was unclear whether the seventh claim duplicated survival claims included in the first and second claims under § 1983.

The court dismissed the seventh claim, with leave to amend, and encouraged the plaintiffs to clarify the claim and avoid duplication. The court noted that the defendants had not explained why the plaintiffs could not seek damages for the decedent’s pre-death suffering or property damage if the plaintiffs established their authority to sue as successors in interest.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the first, second, fifth, and seventh claims, with leave to amend. The opinion specifically noted that the fourth claim, for wrongful death, remained because the defendants had not sought its dismissal. The opinion did not state the disposition of the other claims in the portion provided.