Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01799/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01799-4/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

1

As the moving defendants point out, neither such opposition was timely filed. See

Civil L.R. 7-3(a) (providing “opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 dyas after

the motion was filed”). Although plaintiff has offered no explanation for the delay, the

moving defendants have not identified any resulting prejudice, and indeed, filed a reply

thoroughly addressing plaintiffs’ arguments. Under such circumstances, the Court has

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONIQUE MILES, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C-15-1799 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING

PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND

Before the Court is the “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

[“SAC”],” filed September 11, 2015, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, by defendants Brian Anthony, Bob Sanchez, and Chris Albert’s (collectively,

“moving defendants”). On September 26, 2015, plaintiffs Monique Miles, Romelle Brown,

Ajani Brown, Jordan Brown, Jayden Brown, Chelsea Miles, Pamela Miles, and Erin Miles

(collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed an Opposition thereto, and, on September 28, 2015, a

Corrected Opposition, to which the moving defendants have replied. The Court, having

read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,1

 deems

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 42 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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 considered the Corrected Opposition.

2

the matter appropriate for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 16, 2015, and rules as follows.

1. Contrary to the moving defendants’ argument, the Court finds plaintiffs’ claims

against said defendants are not time-barred. There is no dispute that the applicable statue

of limitations is two years, see Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); Cal. Code Civ.

Proc. § 335.1, or that plaintiff’s original complaint was filed within that period. The Court

finds plaintiffs’ amendment to name Brian Anthony, Bob Sanchez, and Chris Albert as the

“officers of the San Leandro Police Department” previously identified in the initial complaint

as “unknown” (see Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 6) meets the applicable standard for relation back to the

date of the original complaint. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474; Butler v. Nat’l Community

Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 1201 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding “Rule 15(c)(1) [of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] incorporates the relation back rules of the law of a

state when that state’s law provides the applicable statute of limitations and is more lenient”

than the federal law; noting “[u]nder California relation back rules, there is no notice-todefendants requirement as in the federal rule”). 

Accordingly, the moving defendants are not entitled to dismissal on timeliness

grounds.

2. Contrary to the moving defendants’ argument, the Court finds plaintiffs have

alleged sufficient facts to plead a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment. 

For the reasons set forth by the moving defendants, however, the Court finds plaintiffs have

failed to plead sufficient facts to allege each such defendants’ participation in the events

underlying plaintiffs’ claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding “where

the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of

misconduct, the complaint . . . has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief”).

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against the moving defendants are hereby DISMISSED

with leave to amend to plead, as to each such defendant, the particular acts alleged to

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 42 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

have been committed. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint shall be filed on or before

October 28, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01799-MMC Document 42 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 3