Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03877/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03877-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

*E-FILED 6/12/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ESTATE OF ZIAM BOJCIC, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C05 3877 RS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

I. INTRODUCTION

This action arises from an incident in which Ziam Bojic was shot and killed during a

confrontation with a San Jose police officer outside a Starbucks coffee house. Plaintiffs are the

“Estate of Ziam Bojcic” and certain of his relatives. Defendants are Officer Donald Guess and the

City of San Jose Police Department (collectively “the City”), and Starbucks and the “Starbucks

Manager” (collectively “Starbucks”).

The City and Starbucks both filed motions to dismiss based on various aspects of the

complaint they contend are deficient. Plaintiffs opposed the motions, but also filed a “counter

motion” requesting leave to amend, and attaching a proposed first amended complaint. The motions

were heard on June 7, 2006. As discussed at the hearing, the Court exercised its discretion to grant

the motion for leave to amend and then deemed the motions to dismiss as directed at the amended

complaint. Based on the arguments of counsel and all papers filed to date, the motions to dismiss

will be granted, with leave to amend. 

Case 5:05-cv-03877-RS Document 28 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Starbucks has raised an additional question as to whether Bojcic’s mother is in fact a

proper plaintiff under California Probate Law. This would appear to go beyond matters

appropriately examined on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b) (6), and it does not appear that

plaintiffs necessarily should be required to allege facts that would resolve the point even under Rule

12 (e). Nevertheless, plaintiffs are encouraged to remove any doubt by pleading facts sufficient to

establish that Bojcic’s mother is a proper plaintiff, or if the facts are to the contrary, remove her

from the complaint.

2

 II. DISCUSSION

A. The City’s Motion to Dismiss

1) Proper Constitutional Basis of § 1983 Claim

The amended complaint purports to ground its claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on alleged

violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The City argues that although a claim under

the Fourteenth Amendment may be possible in theory, plaintiffs have failed to allege one adequately

here. At the hearing plaintiffs represented that they would not attempt to pursue a claim under the

Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, this aspect of the motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to

amend to base the section 1983 claim on the Fourth Amendment only. 

2) Proper Plaintiffs

The amended complaint remedies a defect of the original complaint by omitting several

plaintiffs. As discussed at the hearing, however, plaintiffs should revise the caption when they file

their second amended complaint to avoid any ambiguity as to who remains as a plaintiff.1

3) Monell Liability

Under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and its

progeny, “[a] municipality or government entity cannot be found liable under section 1983 on a

respondeat superior theory; such liability can be imposed only for injuries inflicted pursuant to an

official government policy.” Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572, 582 (9th Cir. 1989). Although the

amended complaint contains more that is directed to pleading a claim under Monell than existed in

the original complaint, plaintiffs have represented that they will give further attention to the issue.

Accordingly, this aspect of the motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend.

4) State Claims

The City’s motion challenged all of the state law claims based on plaintiffs’ failure file a

Case 5:05-cv-03877-RS Document 28 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Starbucks has alluded to various other difficulties, or potential difficulties, plaintiffs face

with respect to some or all of their claims against Starbucks. Because the two main arguments are

dispositive, the Court does not reach those additional points at this time.

3

 Starbucks acknowledges that there is uncertainty as to whether the state law privilege

would bar a claim under section 1983, if plaintiffs can otherwise state a viable claim under that

statute. In light of the fact that plaintiffs have yet to allege a viable section 1983 claim against

Starbucks, that issue need not be decided at this juncture.

3

claim under the California Tort Claims Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 810 et seq.). Plaintiffs attached a

copy of an unsigned tort claim to the amended complaint, but the pleading does not refer to the

attachment or otherwise demonstrate that plaintiffs have complied with the Tort Claims Act. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend either to allege

compliance with the Tort Claims Act or to omit any claims subject thereto. 

B. Starbucks’ Motion 

 Starbucks’ motion raises two main challenges to plaintiffs’ claims.2 First, Starbucks argues

that all of the state law claims directed against it are barred in light of the privilege of California

Civil Code § 47 (b).3

 Plaintiffs do not dispute that the amended complaint fails on this ground, but

suggest that they may be able to allege facts that would vitiate the privilege. Accordingly, this

aspect of the motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend. Second, Starbucks challenges the

section 1983 claim on grounds that it is not a state actor. The parties are in agreement that under

some circumstances a private actor’s entanglement with a state actor can rise to a level that the

private actor may be held liable under section 1983, but there is no dispute that the amended

complaint fails to state such a claim. Accordingly, this aspect of the motion to dismiss is granted,

with leave to amend. Although plaintiffs have been granted leave to amend their claims against

Starbucks, they should do so only if they can, in good faith, allege a basis for liability

notwithstanding the substantial legal barriers that exist, as suggested by this motion.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED, and the proposed amended complaint

submitted with that motion shall be deemed filed as the First Amended Complaint. The motions to

dismiss are deemed applicable to the First Amended Complaint and are GRANTED, with leave to

Case 5:05-cv-03877-RS Document 28 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

amend as specified above. The Second Amended Complaint shall be filed within 20 days. The case

management conference is hereby continued to September 13, 2006, at 2:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03877-RS Document 28 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Rebecca Connolly Rebecca.Connolly@grunskylaw.com, debbie.yee@grunskylaw.com

Clifford S. Greenberg cao.main@ci.sj.ca.us

Kevin Roy McLean krm@bellilaw.com, webmaster@bellilaw.com

Cal J. Potter , lll lpotter@potterlawoffices.com,

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 6/12/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-03877-RS Document 28 Filed 06/12/06 Page 5 of 5