Ortega v. City Of San Jose

Background

Rudy Ortega lived in a 2015 Rockwood Freedom Trailer at the Spring Street unhoused encampment, also called the Guadalupe Gardens encampment. The trailer was inoperable because it lacked wheel bearings and could not be towed. Ortega alleged that a San Jose police officer told him he had until the end of September 2022 to relocate the trailer and his belongings or the City would seize and destroy them.

Ortega alleged that Home First Services, a nonprofit organization contracting with the City to provide homeless outreach and services, was designated to help repair vehicles and trailers and relocate people from the encampment. He sued the City, five city employees—Jennifer McGuire, Seth Turner, Sandra Murillo, Vanessa Beretta, and John Aitken—and Home First Services. His complaint asserted breach-of-contract claims against the City and Home First Services and constitutional claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments against the City and its employees.

Temporary Restraining Order and Relocation

Ortega applied for a temporary restraining order, meaning emergency court relief, to prevent the City from destroying his trailer and personal belongings. At a September 13, 2022 status conference, the parties agreed that the City would repair the trailer’s wheel bearings so it could be safely moved. At later status conferences, the parties reported that the repairs had been completed and that the trailer had been moved to Seymour Street.

The court’s September 26 order required the City to move the trailer by September 30, store personal belongings Ortega wanted to keep under City policy, and allow the trailer to remain at the agreed location for 30 days. The parties were also directed to file a joint status report and dismissal by October 31, 2022. The City reported that it had moved the trailer outside the abatement zone, but the parties did not file the agreed dismissal. Ortega did not file anything or appear before the court after September 2022.

Mootness and Disposition

A claim is moot when later events eliminate a current dispute that a court can effectively remedy. The court concluded that Ortega’s request for emergency relief was moot because the City had repaired and relocated the trailer and belongings, so they were no longer at imminent risk of destruction at the encampment. The court therefore denied as moot Ortega’s application for a temporary restraining order.

Home First Services moved to dismiss Ortega’s contract claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Ortega had not alleged facts showing a contract between them and that there was otherwise no basis for suing Home First Services. The court did not reach those arguments because it first determined that the changed circumstances eliminated subject-matter jurisdiction. It therefore denied as moot Home First Services’ motion to dismiss.

The court separately found that Ortega’s alleged contract claim against the City was moot because the City had repaired and relocated the trailer, which resolved the alleged dispute. It also found that Ortega’s Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims were moot because the trailer was no longer subject to the threatened abatement. The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining claims and dismissed as moot the action against the City and its employees. The court also terminated the motion to consolidate related cases as moot, ordered that a separate judgment issue, and directed the Clerk to close the file. The order was issued by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.