Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2023

Estate of Leonard Brown v. Alameda County

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:22-cv-05457
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureSection 1983ADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Estate of Leonard Brown v. Alameda County, Judge Chhabria granted CFMG’s partial motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs to amend.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ claims against CFMG were dismissed, but the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint by April 28, 2023. The order does not dismiss claims against any other defendant.

What happened

In Estate of Leonard Brown v. Alameda County, the plaintiffs sued Alameda County and others, and CFMG asked the court to dismiss some claims against it.

The court dismissed the claims against CFMG for deliberate indifference, unwarranted interference with familial association, intentional infliction of emotional [distress], and under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It found that the plaintiffs had not adequately described CFMG employees’ specific roles in Brown’s death or alleged that those employees acted under a policy or custom for purposes of the civil-rights claims.

Judge Chhabria granted CFMG’s partial motion to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. The parties agreed that the amended complaint could be filed by April 28, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Estate of Leonard Brown v. Alameda County · No. 3:22-cv-05457
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Feb. 2, 2023

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims against Alameda County and others, including CFMG. CFMG filed a partial motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss specified claims against it.

Claims and reasoning

The court dismissed the claims against CFMG for deliberate indifference, unwarranted interference with familial association, and intentional infliction of emotional [distress]. The court stated that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the specific role CFMG employees played in Brown’s death. It also stated that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that CFMG employees acted pursuant to a policy or custom, as required for the plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits claims against state or local actors for certain constitutional violations.

The court also dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim against CFMG, relying on the reasoning in Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda and citing Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Disposition

The court granted CFMG’s partial motion to dismiss. The dismissal was with leave to amend. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs could file an amended complaint by April 28, 2023. The order does not state that the claims against any other defendant were dismissed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.