Eghtesad v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Nader Eghtesad and Milestone Diversified Group, LLC alleged that the County of Contra Costa and several current or former County employees engaged in a pattern of wrongful conduct involving their real properties. The alleged conduct included seeking improper payments, discrimination based on Eghtesad’s race or ethnicity, retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct, issuing improper violation and abatement notices, refusing to process permits, and refusing to process appeals and California Public Records Act requests.

The complaint referred to building permits, permit applications, notices to comply, and a notice concerning a possible nuisance-abatement proceeding. The defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of eight related documents. Because the documents were incorporated into the complaint by reference or were public records, the court granted the request for judicial notice.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and failed to state a claim. A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts and a legally recognized theory of relief.

The court held that the two-year statute of limitations for constitutional claims applied to all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including their request for a writ. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the limitations period began when they sent a December 2020 demand letter or that efforts to resolve the dispute administratively extended the deadline. The court stated that sending a demand letter was not a triggering event and did not revive an otherwise time-barred claim.

The court also concluded that, even if the claims accrued when the last notice to comply was issued on January 8, 2020, the lawsuit filed on December 22, 2022, was still untimely. The court noted that the complaint did not allege that the plaintiffs had completed the corrective actions identified in the notices, timely applied for permits in response to those notices, or contacted the identified inspector to contest the alleged nuisance conditions.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend on statute-of-limitations grounds. The court did not address whether the plaintiffs had otherwise stated valid claims because it found that the claims were likely time-barred. The plaintiffs were allowed to amend to allege any objections or appeals they made, the substance of those efforts, compliance with the corrective actions, or other facts suggesting an ongoing violation. The amended complaint had to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and contain all relevant facts; merely attaching the demand letter would not be enough.