Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2023

Khalif v. City of Belvedere

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:22-cv-04097
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil RightsCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Khalif v. City of Belvedere, Judge Rogers denied dismissal of Claim 7, granted it with prejudice for Claim 6, and otherwise granted the motion with leave to amend.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs Yema Khalif and Hawi Awash, and the defendants City of Belvedere and the other named defendants. Claim 7 remains undismissed, the motion was granted with prejudice as to Claim 6, and the other affected claims may be amended.

What happened

In Khalif v. City of Belvedere, Yema Khalif and Hawi Awash challenged claims brought against the City of Belvedere and other defendants. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

The court denied the motion as to Claim 7, granted it with prejudice as to Claim 6, and otherwise granted the motion with leave to amend. The plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended pleading by March 22, 2023, and the defendants were ordered to respond two weeks later.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also referred the case to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. The order was issued on March 10, 2023, and terminated the defendants’ motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Khalif v. City of Belvedere · No. 4:22-cv-04097
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Mar. 10, 2023

Background

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The opinion states that the court ruled based on reasons given during a March 8, 2023 hearing.

A footnote discusses an allegation that Officer Clark touched the plaintiffs and began to unholster his gun while responding to their conduct. The defendants argued that this was not enough to support an excessive-force claim and cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that merely unholstering a firearm, without more, does not constitute excessive force. The court treated the plaintiffs’ failure to address that authority as a concession that they could not plead an excessive-force claim.

Ruling

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Claim

  1. It granted the motion with prejudice as to Claim
  2. The court otherwise granted the motion with leave to amend, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended pleading by Wednesday, March 22,
  3. The defendants were ordered to respond two weeks after that filing.

Settlement conference and case status

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers referred the matter to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. If the case settled, the parties were ordered to file a notice of settlement within two business days so that the court could vacate pending dates. The order terminated docket number 39.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.