Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00647/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00647-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. WHEELER and GLORIA A. WHEELER, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-0647 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 49]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court's April 28, 2006 Order, which granted Defendant City of Oakland's

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed the City of Oakland from the lawsuit. The

Order also dismissed Plaintiffs' first cause of action with respect to individual Defendants Fielding,

Fisher, Wilson, and Rosen; and dismissed Plaintiffs' third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. 

In their Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs also seek to

amend their First Amended Complaint (FAC). 

On May 25, 2006, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for

Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration, which they did on June 13, 2006.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must be made in accordance with

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9. The moving party must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/23/06 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-

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the

time of such order; or 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Parties may not repeat any oral or written arguments which were made in support of or in

opposition to the interlocutory order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court considers Plaintiffs' repeated requests for leave to amend the

FAC, so that they can cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's April 28, 2006 Order. 

 Plaintiffs may not amend their complaint with respect to any causes of action or defendants that

have been dismissed with prejudice. Only if the Court were to grant the Motion for

Reconsideration and issue an amended order dismissing claims or parties without prejudice would

Plaintiffs be allowed file an amended complaint. As will be explained, the Court rejects Plaintiffs'

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. 

Further, even if the Court had not dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs would not be allowed

to amend at this point in the litigation: the case is set to go to trial in November 2006, and

amendment would unduly prejudice Defendants. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385,

1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' requests to amend the FAC are DENIED.

A. First Cause of Action: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the § 1983 claim against the

City of Oakland. This claim was dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that the

City has a policy of deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' civil rights, which is required for

municipal liability under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). According

to Plaintiffs, the Court "committed clear error" by only considering incidents within the two-year

statute of limitations in deciding the Monell claim, thereby neglecting material facts. 

Plaintiffs list three incidents occurring outside the limitations period, and argue that

consideration of these incidents would alter the outcome of Defendant's Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings, because they show a "pattern or practice" by the City of Oakland of deliberate

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/23/06 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-

indifference to their civil rights. 

However, even taking these incidents into consideration, Plaintiffs have still not shown that

the City had a "widespread" practice that was "pervasive" or "standard operating procedure." See

Order at 12. Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Court manifestly failed to consider dispositive

legal arguments which were presented to it before issuance of the Order. Further, with the

exception of one incident which occurred on May 2, 2006, the "new evidence" identified in

Plaintiffs' Motion was known by Plaintiffs before the Court issued the April 28, 2006 Order, and

could have been raised in Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings. In addition, this single incident does not establish a pattern or practice. As such,

Plaintiffs have failed to identify new material facts which warrant reconsideration of the Order. 

Plaintiffs are, in essence, attempting to make new legal arguments and/or rehash arguments

already raised, which is not permitted in a Motion for Reconsideration. 

Plaintiffs state that they intend to ask the Court to take judicial notice of the docket and

complaint in McClinton et el v. City of Oakland, et al, No. 98-4371 CW. Motion at 7. However,

no such request has been made. Therefore, the Court will not take judicial notice of McClinton.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the

first cause of action as to Defendant City of Oakland is DENIED. Leave to amend the FAC is also

DENIED for the reasons discussed above.

B. Fourth Cause of Action: Conspiracy under § 1983

Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss with prejudice the Fourth

Cause of Action, alleging a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs assert various new facts

in support of this allegation, which were discovered when Plaintiffs took the depositions of

Defendants Fisher, Pugao, and Carillo on March 24, 2006, and when Defendant took the

deposition of Defendant Fielding on April 3, 2006. See Motion at 13-16. Plaintiffs request an

opportunity to amend the complaint, because they believe that they can cure the deficiencies

contained within the FAC and sufficiently plead an agreement or "meeting of the minds." 

However, as Defendants point out, Plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to Defendants'

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/23/06 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-

Motion to Dismiss on April 5 and 11, 2006, after the relevant depositions took place. Thus,

Plaintiffs knew of the deposition testimony before the Court issued its April 28, 2006 Order, but

failed to present it to the Court. 

The relevant inquiry is whether Plaintiffs have established one of the criteria identified in

Local Rule 7-9(b). Plaintiffs have not shown that, despite exercising reasonable diligence, they

did not know of the alleged "new facts" at the time of the Court's Order, or that new facts emerged

after the Order was issued. Accordingly, reconsideration is not warranted. 

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of the fourth cause of

action is DENIED. Plaintiffs' request to amend the Complaint is also DENIED, for the reasons

discussed above. 

D. Third and Fifth Causes of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiffs contend that newly discovered material facts exist that support an allegation that

Plaintiffs suffered "severe emotional distress." 

Plaintiff Gloria Wheeler was deposed on April 12, 2006. She testified that she is worried

and frightened as a result of the incidents alleged in the FAC. Further, Plaintiff John Wheeler

testified at his deposition that he has trouble sleeping as a result of these incidents, and that he

sometimes cries and has a poor appetite. Plaintiffs' Motion at 9-10. This testimony is merely a

repetition of the allegations contained in the FAC, i.e., "fright, terror, embarrassment, humiliation,

fear for loss of their residential and personal property, mental and emotional distress." FAC at ¶

43. 

Plaintiffs' attempt to relitigate the facts and issues that were before the Court previously is

rejected. Plaintiffs have not presented material new facts as required under Rule 7-9(b). 

Moreover, even if the deposition testimony were taken under consideration, this Court finds that it

fails to establish anything close to the requisite level of severe emotional distress necessary for

recovery in tort, as held in Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for Southern California, 144 Cal. App. 3d

222 (Ct. App. 1983). Emotional distress must rise to the level of "such substantial quantity or

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/23/06 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-

enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it." Id.

at 231 (citations omitted). 

Plaintiffs also contend that the Court erred in holding that they failed to affirmatively

allege a statutory enactment giving rise to a mandatory duty on the part of the City. Plaintiffs state

that the statutory bases of the City's duty are California Vehicle Code § 22660 and 42 U.S.C. §

1983, which were obliquely referenced in the FAC. Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that they

could properly allege the statutory basis for the City's duty if given leave to amend their FAC. See

Motion at 11-12. Defendants raised the issue of statutory duty in their Motion to Dismiss, and

Plaintiffs failed to respond to it. Order at 18. The Court will not now consider arguments that

Plaintiffs should have made long ago. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffs' Third

and Fifth Causes of Action is DENIED. Leave to amend the FAC is also DENIED. 

E. Dismissal of Defendant Fisher

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Fisher was erroneously dismissed from the suit. 

According to Plaintiffs, the depositions of John Wheeler, Pugao, and Fisher establish that Fisher

was in charge of the Vehicle Abatement Unit when Pugao entered Plaintiffs' property in 2002 and

2004, and that Fisher entered Plaintiffs' property and demanded to inspect Plaintiffs' covered

vehicles in 2004. Motion at 16. Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its decision to

dismiss Fisher because the only alleged Fourth Amendment violation by him was in 2001, and was

thus time-barred. 

Defendants point out that these allegations are not newly discovered, and assert that

Plaintiffs are simply trying to advance a new legal theory of Fisher's liability. Opposition at 11. 

The Court agrees. Plaintiffs have failed to offer any evidence discovered since the Court's Order

was issued (the relevant depositions took place in March 2006). Plaintiffs have also failed to

explain why, given that they knew that Mr. Fisher entered their property in November 2004, they

did not bring that to the Court's attention before the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in

April 2006. Therefore, the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Fisher's

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/23/06 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-

dismissal from the action is DENIED. Leave to amend the FAC is also denied, for the reasons

discussed above.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration and request to amend the FAC are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 10/23/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 87 Filed 10/23/06 Page 6 of 6