Wang v. City of Cupertino

Background

Jane Wang sued the City of Cupertino and Philip Willkomm over enforcement actions involving a backyard structure. The City issued notices stating that the structure violated California Residential Code and Cupertino Municipal Code provisions, later imposed an administrative penalty totaling $16,800, and denied Wang’s administrative appeal. In an earlier state-court proceeding, the court granted summary judgment for the City, ruled that the structure violated the City’s building and zoning regulations and was a public nuisance, upheld the City’s fines, and ordered Wang to remove the structure. After Wang did not comply with that order, the City obtained an abatement warrant and removed the structure on December 6, 2021.

Wang filed this federal action without a lawyer and, after two screening orders, proceeded on her Second Amended Complaint. She asserted claims concerning due process, equal protection, the Bill of Rights and civil rights, ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, retaliation, the Fifth Amendment, and California law.

Federal Claims

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It also considered certain court records, notices, administrative documents, and municipal code provisions under rules allowing judicial notice or consideration of documents incorporated into the complaint.

Due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment (Claim 1). Wang’s procedural due process theory challenged the City’s fine and its enforcement procedures. The court held that issue preclusion barred the claim. Issue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was actually litigated and necessarily decided in an earlier valid judgment. The earlier state-court case had already decided that Wang received a fair administrative hearing and that the City did not abuse its discretion in imposing the fines. The court also held that the claim was barred by California’s two-year limitations period for this type of civil-rights claim because Wang knew or had reason to know of the relevant injury no later than April 11, 2019, while she filed this action on November 3, 2022. The court granted the motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim and dismissed it without leave to amend.

The court treated Wang’s substantive due process claim as another challenge to the fine. It held that issue preclusion and the statute of limitations also barred that claim. The court rejected Wang’s argument that the City’s continuing efforts to collect the fine extended the limitations period. The court granted the motion to dismiss the substantive due process claim and dismissed it without leave to amend.

Equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment (Claim 2). Wang said that the City discriminated against her based on marital status, national origin, spoken language, sex, household status, or age. The court held that she did not allege facts plausibly showing discrimination based on a protected class or intentional different treatment of similarly situated people. It also held that the claim was untimely because the enforcement actions occurred in 2018 and 2019. The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.

“Civil rights, Bill of Rights, deprivation of civil rights under color of law” claim (Claim 4). The court understood this claim to assert a general Bill of Rights claim and a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242. It held that the general Bill of Rights allegations were too vague to identify the legal basis of the claim and that issue preclusion barred Wang from relitigating the adequacy of the City’s administrative process. It further held that § 242 is a criminal statute that does not create a private civil claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.

Ex post facto claim (Claim 5). An ex post facto law is a law that applies retroactively and changes the definition of criminal conduct or increases punishment. The court held that Wang had not identified a retrospective law that disadvantaged her. It granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the federal constitutional claim without leave to amend.

Bill of attainder claim (Claim 6). A bill of attainder is a law that identifies people for punishment without the protections of a judicial trial. The court held that Wang did not identify a legislative enactment that targeted her in that way and instead alleged only that the City misapplied its codes. It granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the federal constitutional claim without leave to amend.

Fifth Amendment claim (Claim 8). The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause applies to the federal government, not state or local governments, so that theory could not be asserted against the City. The court considered whether Wang’s allegations could instead support a Fourteenth Amendment claim and held that they could not. Wang had notice and an opportunity to be heard before the structure was removed because the state court had declared it a public nuisance, ordered its removal, and the City later obtained an abatement warrant. The court also rejected an apparent property-compensation theory because the allegations did not show a taking for public use and the removal abated a declared public nuisance. The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.

State Claims and Disposition

Wang’s remaining state-law claims concerned the California Tort Claims Act, ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and retaliation. Because the court dismissed all federal claims, it declined to exercise its discretionary power to hear the related state-law claims. The court dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Result

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Wang’s federal claims without leave to amend. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. Judge Beth Uabson Freeman signed the order.