Gelber v. City of Willits

Background

Craig Anthony Gelber, who represented himself, sued the City of Willits, the City of Willits Water Department, Brian Bender, Madge Strong, and Davey Bowles. Gelber alleged that the defendants disconnected water service at 283 Sherwood Road after he began pursuing an adverse-possession claim concerning the property. He alleged that he had invested $79,929.57 in cleaning up the property, obtained water service after submitting an application, and later lost that service after the City requested documentation showing his right to reside there or obtain utilities.

Gelber’s First Amended Complaint asserted eight claims: Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act; a claim under California’s Bane Act; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligence; and specific performance. He also asked the court to appoint counsel. The defendants moved to dismiss all eight claims and moved to strike portions of the pleading and certain requests for relief.

Rulings on the Motion to Dismiss

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 and Due Process Claims

The court dismissed Gelber’s substantive due process claim because he did not allege the denial of a fundamental right. The court rejected his argument that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to acquire property through adverse possession, noting that the First Amended Complaint did not adequately plead such a right and that Gelber cited no case recognizing it.

The court also dismissed the procedural due process claim. Gelber appeared to claim a protected interest in water service, but the court found that he did not identify a statute or ordinance containing substantive standards governing the City’s decisions about water service and mandatory language requiring a particular result. The California statute recognizing a human right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water did not supply those requirements. The Willits ordinances cited by Gelber provided procedures for challenging water decisions but did not protect a specific substantive outcome.

The procedural due process claim against Bender and Strong also failed because the court held that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from civil liability unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. The court concluded that Gelber had not shown that their alleged actions violated clearly established law.

The court dismissed the municipal-liability claim against the City. A municipal-liability claim under § 1983 requires an underlying constitutional violation caused by a municipal policy, custom, or practice. Because the court found no adequately pleaded due process violation, it concluded that the municipal-liability claim failed as well. Gelber agreed to withdraw the § 1983 claim against Strong in her official capacity.

California Civil Rights Claims

The court dismissed Gelber’s Unruh Act claims. It found no allegations supporting an inference that the City or its water department was acting as a commercial enterprise when it declined to provide water without proof of ownership. The court also found that Gelber’s allegation that he was a 57-year-old white male pursuing an adverse-possession claim did not plausibly allege membership in a class protected by the Unruh Act.

The court dismissed the Bane Act claim because the First Amended Complaint did not allege threats of violence or conduct rising to the level of intimidation or coercion required by that statute. The court found that the alleged threats to disconnect water, ignoring Gelber, and allegedly coercing him to make an offer to purchase the property were insufficient.

Contract, Good Faith, Negligence, and Specific Performance

The court denied the motion to dismiss Gelber’s implied-breach-of-contract claim against the City. Gelber alleged that the City formed a contract for water service by accepting his application, assigning him a customer account, and providing service. The court concluded that the defendants’ contention that Gelber had misrepresented facts about the property could support a defense or counterclaim but did not defeat the contract claim at the pleading stage. The court granted the motion as to the individual defendants because Gelber did not allege, and could not allege, an implied contract with them.

The court likewise denied the motion to dismiss the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim against the City, but granted it as to the individual defendants. The claim was based on the same allegations as the contract claim and on allegations that the defendants failed to provide a process for addressing Gelber’s water-service grievances.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the negligence claim. Gelber did not identify a statutory basis for imposing tort liability on the City, and he did not identify a legal duty supporting the negligence claim against the individual defendants.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the separately pleaded specific-performance claim. Gelber clarified that he was not asserting specific performance as a separate claim but was relying on it as a basis for damages on the good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim.

Motion to Strike

The court denied the defendants’ motion to strike. The defendants sought to strike requests for equitable relief, punitive and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and certain allegations and exhibits. The court held that the first three requests were not proper subjects for a motion to strike and that striking potentially unnecessary material from a self-represented litigant’s pleading was not appropriate in these circumstances.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Gelber’s motion for appointment of counsel. In a civil case, appointment of counsel is generally a privilege rather than a right, and the court may appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that exceptional circumstances were not present because Gelber had been able to present his claims and file multiple pleadings, while the likelihood of success was unclear at that early stage. The court noted that Gelber had consulted, and could continue to consult, the Legal Help Desk for free assistance.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The contract and good-faith-and-fair-dealing claims remained against the City, while the motion was otherwise granted, including as to the individual defendants on those two claims. The motion to strike was denied, and the motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The court granted Gelber leave to amend and set November 15, 2023, as the deadline for filing another amended complaint.