Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01443/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01443-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

 All background facts are taken from the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW COHEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, HEATHER FONG, CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, GO

DADDY GROUP, INC., and DOES 1-100,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01443 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss certain claims raised in plaintiff’s complaint. The

motion is scheduled for hearing on May 23, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds

this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing.

Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and for good cause shown,

the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND1

On November 27, 2007, plaintiff Andrew Cohen, a San Francisco police officer, filed a

complaint in state court against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Police Chief

Heather Fong, Go Daddy Group, Inc., and the City and County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges

that defendants violated plaintiff’s civil rights and committed other wrongful acts in connection with

a public dispute involving a video plaintiff made parodying the work of police officers. In response to

Case 3:08-cv-01443-SI Document 22 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6
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

the video, Mayor Newsom and Chief Fong appeared at a press conference where they displayed

portions of the video and labeled the video racist, sexist, and homophobic. The video had at one time

been posted on plaintiff’s website, which was hosted by the Go Daddy Group. The complaint alleges

that the San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”) sent a “Letter of Preservation” to Go Daddy

requesting that no changes be allowed to plaintiff’s website. Plaintiff had already removed the video,

at the request of the SFPD, prior to the time the SFPD sent the “Letter of Preservation.” Plaintiff

learned of the alleged “freeze” on his website when he attempted to access his Go Daddy account in

order to remove his home address from a publicly-accessible area. Go Daddy told plaintiff that he

would not be able to access his website account and would have to contact the legal department to

discuss the problem. Plaintiff alleges that he feared for his safety because his home address was

available to the public at a time when defendants were publicly criticizing his video. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) a federal civil rights claim; (2) a

negligence claim against defendant Go Daddy Group; and (3) an intentional tort claim against Go Daddy

Group. The first cause of action appears to allege that defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy against

plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violated plaintiff’s First Amendment

rights by freezing his access to his Go Daddy account, violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by

seizing his Go Daddy account, and deprived plaintiff of property without due process of law in violation

of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It appears that all the claims relate directly to the alleged

freeze on plaintiff’s Go Daddy account, not to statements made by Mayor Newsom and Chief Fong

about plaintiff or his video.

Defendants removed the suit to this Court on March 13, 2008, and on March 18, 2008 plaintiff

voluntarily dismissed defendant Go Daddy Group. Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to

dismiss some of the claims alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The question presented by a motion to dismiss

is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer

Case 3:08-cv-01443-SI Document 22 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

evidence in support of the claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other

grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 

In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and

must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d

556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is

remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. See

United States v. City of Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissing a complaint for

failure to state a claim is proper only “if it appears beyond doubt” that the plaintiff “can prove no set

of facts which would entitle him to relief.” Vazquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The

Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request

to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by

the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). 

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss a number of claims alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff

apparently concedes that dismissal of many of these claims is appropriate because plaintiff’s opposition

is, for the most part, non-responsive to defendants’ motion. The Court will address each of defendants’

contentions in turn.

I. Conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985

Defendants first argue that plaintiff’s conspiracy claims should be dismissed for failure to state

a claim. Defendants correctly argue that to allege a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, a plaintiff

must demonstrate “a deprivation of [a legally-protected] right motivated by ‘some racial, or perhaps

otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.’” Sever v.

Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Griffith v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88,

Case 3:08-cv-01443-SI Document 22 Filed 05/21/08 Page 3 of 6
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

102 (1971)). Here, plaintiff has failed to allege any racial or other protected-class animus by defendants,

and plaintiff’s opposition to this motion makes no attempt to correct this deficiency. The Court

therefore holds that plaintiff’s § 1985 claim must be dismissed.

Defendants also argue that plaintiff cannot maintain a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

because plaintiff has not alleged that the individual defendants caused or personally participated in

causing injury to plaintiff. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff argues

in response that he has alleged that Mayor Newsom and Chief Fong were personally involved in the

alleged conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights because they gave the press conference

and directed Go Daddy to freeze plaintiff’s access to his website. Complaint at ¶ 20. Although it is not

entirely clear whether plaintiff’s complaint sets forth a conspiracy claim under § 1983 – as opposed to

under § 1985 – the Court agrees with plaintiff that his complaint adequately alleges direct involvement

by defendants Newsom and Fong, and thus denies defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground. 

II. Publication of private information claims

Defendants next ask the Court to dismiss any claim that might be alleged in plaintiff’s complaint

for making public plaintiff’s private information. It is not clear whether the complaint states a claim

for relief for making public plaintiff’s private information, but the complaint does allege that defendants

published videos produced by plaintiff, Complaint at ¶¶ 8-10, and prevented him from de-publicizing

his home address, see id. ¶¶ 20, 22. Defendants argue that to the extent plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief

for these claims, they should be dismissed because plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to keep

his videos or home address private and because plaintiff had no expectation of privacy in the videos and

home address, in part because they were not in fact private. Without reaching the first constitutional

question posed by defendants, the Court agrees that these claims, if indeed plaintiff intended to assert

them, must be dismissed because plaintiff cannot assert an expectation of privacy in the information at

issue. 

Plaintiff’s complaint confirms that his videos were available on his website before he removed

them at the request of the SFPD, Complaint at ¶ 15, and that his home address was also available

“through his Go Daddy Group, Inc. listing,” id. ¶¶ 16-17. Plaintiff does not dispute that his home

Case 3:08-cv-01443-SI Document 22 Filed 05/21/08 Page 4 of 6
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

address was already publicly available because he conveyed it to Go Daddy when he registered his

website; nor does plaintiff dispute that he lacks an expectation of privacy in his home address. See

generally Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979) (holding that there is no expectation of

privacy in the telephone numbers one dials and explaining that “[t]his Court consistently has held that

a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third

parties”). Plaintiff’s only argument with regard to the publication of his private information is that the

videos were not publicly available because they were never indexed on Google and could not be found

unless a person knew the exact URL of the website. Assuming this allegation is true, it does not alter

the fact that the videos were posted on the Internet where anyone in plaintiff’s precinct – and

presumably anyone who received a link from members of plaintiff’s precinct, as well as anyone who

stumbled upon plaintiff’s website – could view them. See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 2. For these reasons,

the Court dismisses plaintiff’s potential claims of publication of private information. 

III. Deprivation of property claims

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for deprivation “of property without due process

of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Complaint at ¶ 21. Defendants argue that

this state procedural due process claim must be brought under the Fourteenth, not the Fifth, Amendment,

and also argue that to the extent plaintiff asserts a Fifth Amendment takings claim, it must be dismissed

because the complaint fails to allege any elements of a takings claim. Plaintiff makes no attempt to

respond to these arguments in his opposition. The Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff’s

procedural due process claim may be brought against these non-federal defendants only under the

Fourteenth Amendment, and also finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not actually seek relief under the

takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court therefore dismisses plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due

process claim, leaving in place a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

IV. Punitive damages against municipal defendant 

Defendants argue that plaintiff may not seek punitive damages against the City and County of

San Francisco. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981). Plaintiff concedes

Case 3:08-cv-01443-SI Document 22 Filed 05/21/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

that he is seeking punitive damages only against individual defendants Newsom and Fong, and thus the

Court dismisses plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages to the extent that it seeks such damages against

the municipal defendant.

V. Claims against Go Daddy Group, Inc. 

Finally, defendants ask the Court to dismiss plaintiff’s second and third causes of action, which

allege state law claims against the Go Daddy Group. The Court agrees that because plaintiff dismissed

Go Daddy as a defendant in this case, the second and third causes of action must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims alleging a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, publication of private

information, deprivation of property under the Fifth Amendment, punitive damages against defendant

San Francisco, and general negligence and intentional tortious conduct. The claims are dismissed

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND because plaintiff has made no showing that additional pleading can

cure the defects of his complaint. The Court also DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

conspiracy claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docket No. 17]. Plaintiff is ordered to file an

amended complaint, consistent with the rulings in this order, on or before June 6, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01443-SI Document 22 Filed 05/21/08 Page 6 of 6