Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVETTE SANDERS, individually and )

as guardian ad litem for the estate of ) 

Michael Sanders, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF FRESNO a municipality; )

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, a )

municipality; TASER )

INTERNATIONAL, Inc. a corporation )

doing business in California; JERRY )

DYER, an individual; and DOES 1 )

through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-0469 AWI SMS

ORDER ON COUNTY OF

FRESNO’S MOTION TO

STRIKE OR DISMISS AND

VACATING HEARING ON

SAME

This is a civil action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law in

connection with the death of Michael Sanders. The County of Fresno brings this motion to strike

or dismiss Plaintiff’s allegations for punitive damages. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 12(f)

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to strike from “any

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the costs that

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 6
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

arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. See Fantasy,

Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517

(1994); Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.1983). Immaterial

matter is defined as matter that “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief

or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d at 1527. Impertinent matter is defined as

“statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc.

984 F.2d at 1527. Granting a motion to strike may be proper if it will make the trial less

complicated or if allegations being challenged are so unrelated to plaintiff's claims as to be

unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that their presence in the pleading will be

prejudicial to the moving party. See id. Motions to strike are generally viewed with disfavor and

are not frequently granted. See Bassiri v. Xerox Corp., 292 F. Supp.2d 1212, 1220 (C.D. Cal.

2003). Courts must view the pleading under attack in the light more favorable to the pleader. See

id. Accordingly, “motions to strike should not be granted unless it can be shown that no

evidence in support of the allegation would be admissible, or those issues could have no possible

bearing on the issues in the litigation.” Gay-Straight Alliance Network v. Visalia Unified School

Dist., 262 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Nevertheless, a motion to strike may be used

to strike a prayer for relief where the damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of law. See

Gay-Straight Alliance Network, 262 F.Supp.2d at 1110-11; Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp.

1450, 1479 n.34 (C.D. Cal. 1996); see also Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1004-1005 (9th

Cir. 2000); Bassiri, 292 F.Supp.2d at 1224.

 DISCUSSION

The County of Fresno’s Motion

 The County argues that as a matter of both California tort law and pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, a public entity cannot be held liable for punitive damages. Because punitive damages are

unavailable as a matter of law, Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages should be stricken.

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Opposition

Plaintiff argues that a municipality is not entirely immune from punitive damages as

“municipalities may pay punitive damages in some circumstances.” Bell v. Clackamas County,

341 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2003). California Government Code section 825(b), authorizes a

municipality to pay a punitive damages award against an employee who acted in good faith and

was within the scope of his or her employment. Plaintiff argues that she should be allowed to

maintain her punitive damages claim against the City in the event the City agrees to pay for any

punitive damages assessed against the officers.

A. Punitive Damages Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff’s opposition addresses the City and not the County. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s

argument is without merit. It is more than clear that “a municipality is immune from punitive

damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271

(1981); see also Bell, 341 F.3d at 868 n.4; Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514, 524

(9th Cir. 1999); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527 (9th Cir. 1996); Davis v. Mason County,

927 F.2d 1473, 1485 n.6 (9th Cir. 1991); Cornwell v. City of Riverside, 896 F.2d 398, 399 (9th

Cir. 1990); Gay-Straight Alliance Network, 262 F.Supp.2d at 1110-11. 

Plaintiff’s reliance on Bell is misplaced. Bell states:

Although municipal defendants are immune from liability for punitive damages

under § 1983, see City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 . . .

(1981), municipalities may pay punitive damages in some circumstances. Cf. Cal.

Gov't Code § 825 (b) (authorizing a public entity to pay a punitive damages award

against an employee if the employee acted in good faith and within the scope of

his or her public employment). 

Bell, 341 F.3d at 868 n.4. Bell is in line with the Supreme Court’s punitive damages prohibition

in City of Newport. The footnote merely points out that a municipality may pay a punitive

damages award, it does not say that municipalities are liable or may be found liable under §

1983. More to the point, the footnoted comment in Bell is in the context of a discussion on a

district court’s ability to reduce an award for punitive damages based on the defendant’s ability to

pay and the possible indemnification by a county. See Bell, 341 F.3d at 868 (“Similarly, to the

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 3 of 6
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

Section 825(a) provides in relevant part, “Nothing in this section authorizes a public entity to pay that part

of a claim or judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 825(a).

4

degree that the defendants seek reduction of punitive damages because of their inability to pay,

any indemnification by the County for the payment of such damages n4 may be taken into

account.”). The comment does not deal with a judgment against a municipality for punitive

damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Finally, California Government Code 825(b) reads in relevant part: 

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a)1 or any other provision of law, a public entity

is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive or exemplary

damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion

except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the

following: [the judgment is based on conduct within the course and scope of the

employee’s employment, the employee’s conduct was in good faith, and payment

is in the best interest of the public entity].

Cal. Gov’t Code § 825(b). Section 825(b) gives a municipality’s governing body the

discretion to indemnify an employee for a judgment of punitive damages against that employee if

the body finds that certain criteria are met. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 825; Navarro v. Block, 250

F.3d 729, 732-33 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 825(b) speaks to judgments against the

employee, not the municipality itself. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 825. Whether a municipality

utilizes its discretion to pay a punitive damages award against an employee is a matter between

the employee and the municipality. See id. Section 825(b) does not aid Plaintiff.

B. Punitive Damages Under California Law

Plaintiff does not address the County’s argument that punitive damages may not be

imposed under California law as per Government Code § 818. Section 818 provides: “Absence

of liability for exemplary and punitive damages: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a

public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other

damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” 

Cal. Gov’t Code § 818. “In context [section 818,] means that . . . a plaintiff who alleges injury

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 4 of 6
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

caused by a public entity may be entitled to actual damages for that injury, but not punitive

damages.” Kizer v. County of San Mateo, 53 Cal.3d 139, 145 (1991); Marron v. Superior Court,

108 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1059 (2003). 

Section 818 of the Government Code, in referring to ‘damages imposed primarily

for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant’ contemplates . . .

punitive damages [that] are designed to punish the defendant rather than to

compensate the plaintiff. Punitive damages are by definition in addition to actual

damages and beyond the equivalent of harm done. 

State Dept. of Corrections v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 5 Cal.3d 885, 891 (1971); Marron,

108 Cal.App.4th at 1060. 

Here, Plaintiff prays for the following relief in her complaint: “For punitive damages

against CITY and COUNTY in an amount sufficient to punish them and deter them from future

misconduct and to make an example for others.” Plaintiff’s Original Complaint at 16:1-3

(emphasis added). This prayer clearly prays for punitive damages to punish and make an

example of the County and the City, which is improper. See Cal. Gov’t Code 818; Kizer, 53

Cal.3d at 145; State Dep’t of Corrections, 5 Cal.3d at 891; Marron, 108 Cal.App.4th at 1059-60.

 CONCLUSION

Plaintiff prays for punitive damages against both the City and the County of Fresno. The

only federal cause of action plead is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, “a municipality is immune

from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” City of Newport, 453 U.S. at 271; Bell, 341

F.3d at 868 n.4; Ruvalcaba, 167 F.3d at 524; Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 527; Davis, 927 F.2d at 1485

n.6; Cornwell, 896 F.2d at 399; Gay-Straight Alliance Network, 262 F.Supp.2d at 1110-11. 

Also, Plaintiff prays for punitive damages against the City and County in order to punish and

make an example of them to deter others. However, “a public entity is not liable for [punitive]

damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” 

Cal. Gov’t Code § 818; Kizer, 53 Cal.3d at 145; State Dep’t of Corrections, 5 Cal.3d at 891;

Marron, 108 Cal.App.4th at 1059-60. It is appropriate under Rule 12(f) to strike a prayer for

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 5 of 6
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

relief where the damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of law. See Nurse, 226 F.3d at

1004-05; Bassiri, 292 F.Supp.2d at 1224; Gay-Straight Alliance Network, 262 F.Supp.2d at

1110-11; Bureerong, 922 F. Supp. at 1479 n.34. The motion to strike was filed on behalf of the

County, but the Plaintiff’s opposition addresses punitive damages against the City. The above

principles apply equally to both the City and the County as both are municipalities/public

entities. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 811.2 (definition of “public entity” includes both a “county” and

a “city”); City of Newport, 453 U.S. at 271 (prohibiting punitive damages against a city under §

1983); Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 527 (prohibiting punitive damages against a county under § 1983). 

Thus, it is appropriate to strike the claims for punitive damages against both the City and the

County of Fresno. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant County of Fresno’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED;

2. All claims for punitive damages against the County of Fresno and the City of

Fresno made in Plaintiff’s original complaint are stricken with prejudice; and

3. Given this order, the July 11, 2005, hearing on the County of Fresno’s motion to

strike or dismiss is VACATED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 6 of 6