Richter v. Ausmus

Background

After an April 2023 order, the only remaining claims were Richter’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of procedural due process and violation of the Takings Clause. Both claims were based on the defendants’ alleged delay in processing her industrial disability retirement application. The court stated that the damages apparently at issue were interest from approximately March 28, 2020, when Richter left the City of Oakland’s payroll, through January 2023, when her disability retirement benefits were granted, along with possibly limited additional damages caused by the delay.

The court had stayed the case so the parties could participate in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson. During the stay, Richter filed a motion to lift the stay and add a new claim, and a motion to alter or amend a judgment. The court noted that Richter had repeatedly sought to expand the case and had previously instructed her that no further amendments would be allowed.

Rulings on the Motions

The court denied Richter’s motion to add a claim. The proposed claim concerned Oakland’s March 2023 denial of her application for a “Retired Officer Badge and a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW)” endorsement. The court stated that Richter had repeatedly been told she could not raise new claims in this case and would have to pursue other remedies for that alleged wrong.

The court also denied Richter’s motion to alter or amend a judgment. The court said the motion was more properly treated as a request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration under the court’s local rules, but denied it despite Richter’s failure to follow the proper procedure.

Richter argued that the court had improperly applied motion-to-dismiss standards when rejecting her earlier motion for partial summary judgment concerning industrial disability retirement. The court explained that it had denied that motion because there were no undisputed facts supporting her requests for interest, penalties, costs, or a higher benefit award. An earlier denial had been without prejudice to refiling after the California Public Employees’ Retirement System made a final decision, but Richter did not refile after receiving benefits.

The court also rejected Richter’s arguments concerning an equal-protection claim and a “class of one” theory. The court stated that the disability-discrimination theory had been the limit of the equal-protection claim and that a class-of-one theory, even if it had been properly included in an amended complaint, would have failed as a matter of law in this public-employment context. The court denied Richter’s request to reinstate equal-protection and due-process claims based on the retired-badge and concealed-weapons-endorsement denial.

The court further declined to revive Richter’s claim under California Civil Code § 1094.5. The court had previously granted summary judgment on that claim based on an administrative-law judge’s determination that Oakland should process Richter’s application and the later determination that she was entitled to disability retirement benefits. The court said the claim had been limited to administrative actions relevant to Richter’s remaining claims and would not be expanded to challenge the Oakland Police Department’s investigation or Richter’s termination.

Case Schedule

The settlement conference held on May 18, 2023, was unsuccessful. The court therefore lifted the stay and ordered the parties to proceed with discovery. It set August 19, 2023, as the fact-discovery cutoff and the deadline for expert disclosures and reports; September 15, 2023, for rebuttal reports; September 29, 2023, to close expert discovery; October 11, 2023, as the last day for hearing a summary-judgment motion; November 27, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., for the pretrial conference; and December 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., for trial.