Kamath v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Reshma Kamath sued the San Francisco Police Department, Federal Protective Services, and the United States Department of Homeland Security over three parking tickets and the towing of her vehicle. She alleged that, between May and July 2023, the entities engaged in selective enforcement and discrimination based on her race, ethnicity, and gender. Her complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of rights, a conversion claim, and a civil-assault claim.

The City and County of San Francisco appeared for the San Francisco Police Department and moved to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to satisfy government claims-presentation requirements. After briefing ended, Kamath also asked to file a sur-reply. The court denied that request because the applicable local rule generally barred additional filings after a reply without court approval, and the court could not consider new evidence outside the complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Substitution of Defendant

The court substituted the City and County of San Francisco for the San Francisco Police Department. Although the City argued that the Police Department was not a proper defendant under the San Francisco charter, Kamath did not object to the substitution, and the City agreed to defend the claims. The court stated that the substitution did not affect whether the claims were legally viable.

Section 1983 Claim

Kamath’s Section 1983 claim alleged that she was deprived of property without due process, that her property was seized unlawfully, that she was targeted because of race, ethnicity, and gender, and that the defendants followed a policy of acting without a court order or an opportunity to be heard.

Because the defendant was a municipality, the claim required facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The court found the complaint insufficient. Kamath did not allege where the vehicle was parked or whether it was lawfully parked; did not clearly identify which entity issued the tickets or committed the alleged violations; did not provide facts supporting an inference that the tickets were issued because of her race, ethnicity, or gender; and did not allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice causing the claimed violation.

The court granted dismissal of the Section 1983 claim with leave to amend. It concluded that Kamath’s opposition suggested she might be able to add facts and clarify the basis for the claim.

State-Law Claims

Kamath’s conversion claim appeared to challenge the ticketing and towing of her vehicle. The court held that she had not alleged exhaustion of the administrative procedures available under the California Vehicle Code for contesting parking violations. It dismissed the conversion claim with leave to amend to the extent Kamath had a good-faith basis to do so.

Kamath did not oppose dismissal of her civil-assault claim and stated that she was not suing under the California Tort Claims Act or related government-code provisions for negligence, physical injury, or property damage. The court treated the assault claim as abandoned and dismissed it without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted the City and County of San Francisco’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, except as to the assault claim. Any amended complaint had to identify the defendant or defendants for each claim and be properly served. The deadline was April 1, 2024. The court also continued the initial case-management conference to May 16, 2024, and stayed discovery pending that conference.