Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07293/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07293-4/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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 10/19/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEGAN DEANN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY, ADA

SIFUENTES, ANTONIO SIFUENTES,

LUCILLE HRALIMA, STEVEN SINOR,

ELVA MENCIA, MICHELLE CASSILLAS,

PAT MANNION, ANTONIO MENDOZA

CEBALLOS and DOES 1-30, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-06-07293 RMW

ORDER DENYING COUNTY

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND

STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART COUNTY

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE;

DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING

THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket Nos. 42, 44, 45, 51]

Defendants County of Monterey, social workers Lucille Hralima, Elva Mancilla (erroneously

sued as Elva Mencia), Michelle Casilla (erroneously sued as Michelle Cassillas), and Patricia

Mannion, and Monterey County sheriff Steven Sinor (collectively, "County Defendants") move to

remand certain claims in plaintiff Megan Deann Allen's ("Allen") Second Amended Complaint

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 13
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

 The court received the County Defendants' requests for judicial notice. The court takes notice of

its own order of June 18, 2007 Granting in Part and Denying in Part County Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss and Granting in Part and Denying in Part County Defendants' Motion to Strike. The court

also takes notice of the complaint filed in Antonio Ceballos Mendoza v. County of Monterey, et al,

M82902 (Monterey Sup. Ct. Jan. 30, 2007).

ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 2

("SAC"). Specifically, the County Defendants seek to remand the third, fourth, fifth and sixth

claims for lack of supplemental subject matter jurisdiction.1

 As no underlying state civil action exists

for this court to remand those claims to, the court interprets the County Defendants' motion as a

motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants Ada Sifuentes and Antonio

Sifuentes (collectively, "the Sifuenteses") separately move to dismiss the third, fourth and sixth

claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. County Defendants and the Sifuenteses separately

move to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party; County Defendants move to dismiss the

fifth and sixth claims while the Sifuenteses move to dismiss the third, fourth and sixth. 

Additionally, County Defendants move to strike certain allegations from the complaint. Allen

agrees that certain allegations should be stricken, but otherwise opposes the various motions.

The court has read the moving and responding papers and considered arguments of counsel. 

For the reasons set forth below, the court denies County Defendants' and the Sifuenteses' motion to

dismiss and grants in part and denies in part County Defendants' motion to strike as follows:

1. The motion to strike items 1 to 27 is denied.

2. The motion to strike items 28 and 29 is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

1. Monterey County Takes Custody of Allen's Children

This case concerns three children – A.A., N.A., and Jaime Ceballos – all of whom are

children of plaintiff Megan Deann Allen. SAC ¶ 5. Allen formerly lived with her mother and stepfather. On December 13, 2004, while Allen was shopping with A.A., A.A. disclosed that Allen's

step-father had put on a "dirty movie" and then touched himself and her in "private places." Id. ¶ 21. 

Allen drove home, immediately conferred with her sister, and decided to call 911 to report what

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 3

A.A. had told her. Id. ¶ 22. Officers from the Monterey County Sheriff's Department arrived and

A.A. relayed the same disclosure to them. Id. ¶ 23. Following the officer's advice, Allen took A.A.

to the hospital to be examined. Id. ¶ 25. Allen agreed with the nurse at the hospital that, due to the

allegations, Child Protective Services ("CPS") should be contacted. Id. ¶ 26. The medical

examination revealed that A.A. had a rash which was likely caused by poor hygiene, and that there

was no evidence of sexual assault. Id. ¶ 27. Nevertheless, the nurse recommended that A.A. be kept

overnight to be further evaluated and that Allen should return the next morning to meet with CPS. 

Id.

Allen arrived the next morning, but was not allowed to see A.A. while CPS asked A.A.

questions. Id. ¶ 28. Social worker Lucille Hralima conducted the questioning, and later told Allen

that Allen could not take A.A. home because A.A. was now on a "3-day CPS hold." Id. ¶¶ 28-30. 

Hralima informed Allen that the hold was necessary in order to do "a little more investigation." Id. ¶

33. Allen discovered from reports filed in the later juvenile dependency proceedings that Hralima

claimed A.A. had told her during the interview that her grandparents put tape on her eyes and mouth

and made her eat moldy bread. Id. ¶ 34. Allen alleges that she is vigilant about protecting her

daughter, and that Hralima never investigated whether A.A.'s statements were true. Id. ¶¶ 35-38.

With Hralima's assistance, Allen and her other two children, N.A. and Jaime, immediately

moved out of her parents' house to a friend's house and then with Allen's boyfriend to a hotel room

provided by social services. Id. ¶¶ 39-41. Just after moving to the hotel room, Hralima contacted

Allen and reported that A.A. was ready to be released to Allen. Id. ¶ 42. When Allen arrived at the

hospital, A.A. was not present, and Hralima informed Allen that all of her children were being taken

into custody because of sexual abuse. Id. ¶ 43. Hralima, accompanied by two police officers

including sheriff Sinor, insisted that Allen sign a paper acknowledging notification that her children

were being taken into custody. Id. ¶¶ 44-46. When Allen refused, Sinor threatened to arrest her for

sexual abuse and disorderly conduct. Id. ¶¶ 46-48. Ultimately, Allen acceded and signed the

papers. Id. ¶ 48. While Hralima was removing the children, she allegedly told Allen not to worry

because "it's not permanent." Id. ¶ 50. Although Allen was not informed of the reasons the children

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 4

were being removed, other than that it was for sexual abuse, she allegedly overheard Hralima say to

Sinor that Allen had "chosen her boyfriend over her children." Id. Allen did not discover until she

read court reports in the subsequent juvenile court proceedings that her then-boyfriend was a

registered sex offender for an incident that occurred thirteen years earlier. Id. No warrant had been

issued for the removal of the children. Id. ¶ 47. 

Hralima then filed allegedly false reports with the juvenile dependency court stating that

Allen had been suspected of drug use. Id. ¶ 55. However, Hralima had never even questioned Allen

about drug use. Id. On December 20, 2004 the County filed a juvenile dependency petition and on

December 22, 2004 a detention hearing was held. Id. ¶ 58. All three children were then removed by

court order pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 319 and shortly thereafter were placed into foster

care with defendants Ada and Antonio Sifuentes. Id. ¶ 58.

2. Jaime Ceballos Dies in the Sifuentes' Foster Care

Over the next year, Allen went on supervised visits to the Sifuentes' home. Id. ¶ 59. Soon

after, Allen began seeing bruises on her children repeatedly. Id. Although she complained

numerous times, including to County personnel supervising those visits, there was allegedly no

responsive measure taken. Id. On a supervised visit with Jaime, Allen noticed injuries all over

Jaime's body, including bruises on the forehead, hand marks and an elongated "whip-like" mark on

his backside, and a large blackened bruise on his back. Id. ¶ 82. Allen showed these injuries to the

social worker supervising the visit, but the social worker failed to make any further inquiry or

investigation into the injuries. Id. At least seven other times, and from various sources, social

workers Mancilla, Casilla, and Mannion received reports of abuse. Id. ¶¶ 74-81. These reports

informed the social workers that (1) A.A. had been held under water in the bathtub; (2) Jaime had

been kicked brutally while climbing the stairs; (3) Jaime had been whipped by a belt; (4) N.A. had

been physically beaten and shown to a social worker with two black eyes and bruising on his

forehead; (6) the Sifuenteses failed to provide adequate food and water to the children; (7) the older

children were allowed to "punish" the younger children; and (8) the children were sleeping with the

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 4 of 13
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

 Peritonitis refers to inflammation of the smooth transparent serous membrane that lines the

cavity of the abdomen. Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2002), available at

http://www.intelihealth.com/ IH/ihtIH/WSI/9276/9276.html. 

3

 Hemoperitoneum refers to bleeding in the abdominal cavity. Merriam-Webster Medical

Dictionary (2002), available at http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSI/9276/9276.html. 

ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 5

foster parents. Id. ¶¶ 74. Despite this litany of abuses, Allen's children remained in the Sifuenteses'

home.

On November 27, 2005 paramedics took Jaime, Allen's two year old boy, to the hospital

from the Sifuenteses' home. Id. ¶ 60. Within thirty minutes, Jaime was pronounced dead. Id. The

immediate cause of death was acute peritonitis2

 and hemoperitoneum3 due to blunt force trauma to

the abdomen which lacerated the small intestine and the supporting tissues of the bowels causing

massive bleeding and infection. Id. ¶¶ 61, 64. According to the pathologist, the injury resulted from

forceful impact by or against a hard, relatively smooth object, less than about two inches wide. Id. ¶

64. The pathologist also indicated that the injury occurred within the last few days of Jaime's life. 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that medical treatment was not sought for Jaime for the few days after his injury

and paramedics were only summoned moments before his death. Id. ¶ 66. When the paramedics

found Jaime, he was not in bed, but was found lying in the hallway of the Sifuentes home. Id. ¶ 67.

In addition to the injuries that were identified as the immediate cause of death, the coroner

found that Jaime had several traumatic injuries to his head, face, torso, arms, and legs. Id. ¶¶ 62, 63. 

He had five abrasions on his head, a subgaleal hemorrhage, a subdural hemorrhage, and injuries to

the back of his head, forehead, eyes, cheeks, mouth, lips, and ears. Id. ¶ 61. The coroner also

identified injuries to Jaime's forearm, knees, shoulder, lower legs, and shins, and found numerous

bruises covering a significant portion of his back. Id. ¶ 62. There was also a deep scalp abrasion

over a crushed area of scalp causing part of his forehead to be concaved inward. Id. ¶ 63. The postmortem examination identified "extensive, recent, unhealed laceration" in the abdominal cavity,

colon, and intestines. Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff alleges that Jaime's physical status on the day of his death

also indicated that he had been denied adequate nutrition for a lengthy period of time. Id. ¶ 69. 

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 5 of 13
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

 County Defendants begin their motion citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(c), a section that does not

exist. Based on the quotation supplied, the court believes that County Defendants intended to cite

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In any event, the court may only remand cases that have been removed from

state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). As this case was filed in federal court, there is no underlying

state proceeding to receive a remanded case. Based on the remainder of the County Defendants'

arguments, the court treats its motion to remand as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction over Allen's state law claims.

ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 6

Plaintiff alleges that Jaime's injuries are consistent with his being "either punched or kicked in the

abdominal area on several occasions over a long period of time, with injuries in various stages of

healing found internally." Id. ¶ 68.

According to the subsequent police investigation of the Sifuentes' home, at least eight other

juveniles were in the home and a total of eleven individuals lived there, violating state law covering

placement of children in foster homes. Id. ¶ 71. In addition to not reporting the overcrowding,

social workers allegedly failed to make mandatory monthly visits to the foster home. Id. ¶ 73.

II. ANALYSIS

The County Defendants now move to "remand" the third, fourth, fifth and sixth claims for

wrongful death to state court.4

 The court treats this motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of

supplementary jurisdiction. The Sifuenteses likewise moves to dismiss the third, fourth and sixth

causes of action. The defendants in essence argue that the federal claims regarding the removal and

detention of Allen's three children are separate claims from the four wrongful death claims based

upon the treatment and supervision of the children in the foster home following removal. Therefore,

defendants claim there is no supplemental jurisdiction over the wrongful death claims. The County

Defendants and the Sifuenteses also move to dismiss the wrongful death claims for failure to join a

necessary party. Finally, the County Defendants move to strike various allegations from the Second

Amended Complaint.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

1. "Common Nucleus of Operative Fact"

County Defendants and the Sifuenteses argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

to hear Allen's four wrongful death claims because the court may not exercise supplemental

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 6 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 7

jurisdiction over state law claims where the claims do not form the "same case or controversy under

Article III." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A state claim is part of the same "case" as a federal claim where

the claims "'derive from a common nucleus of operative fact' and are such that a 'plaintiff would be

expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.'" Trustees of the Constr. Indus. and Laborers

Health and Welf. Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maintenance, Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir.

2003) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). In general, a

"loose factual connection" between the claims suffices for the claims to be considered one "case"

under Article III. See Ammerman v. Sween, 54 F.3d 423, 424 (7th Cir. 1995).

In Ammerman, the plaintiff asserted state law assault and battery claims against a co-worker

and a claim under Title VII against her employer on the basis of the employer's refusal to pursue

remedial measures following the alleged sexual assault. Id. The court found that the two claims

formed a constitutional "case" because the facts surrounding the assault informed the reasonableness

of the university's response that led to the Title VII claim. On the other hand, no "common nucleus"

existed in Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758 (3d Cir. 1995) or Soliday v. Miami County, Ohio, 55 F.3d

1158 (6th Cir. 1995). In Lyon, the Third Circuit found no "common nucleus" between a Fair Labor

Standards Act claim for overtime pay and a breach of contract action for failure to pay a bonus.

Lyon, 45 F.3d at 759. In explaining its decision, the court stressed that no "common nucleus" exists

where the "state claims [are] totally unrelated to a cause of action under federal law," but also noted

that a "common nucleus" does exist where a "critical background fact . . . is common to all the

claims." Id. at 760-61. The Third Circuit further noted that the court must dismiss state claims

where the federal and state claims "are separately maintainable and determinable without any

reference to the facts alleged or stated in or with regard to the other count." Lyon, 45 F.3d at 763. 

Another illustration of this principle comes from Soliday, where the Sixth Circuit found no

"common nucleus" between a federal claim against jail employees for deliberate indifference to the

health of an inmate and a state claim against the coroner for violating provisions regarding handling

bodies. Soliday, 55 F.3d at 1165.

The touchstone of whether there is a "common nucleus" between two claims under Gibbs is

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 7 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 8

whether a plaintiff would be expected to try the two claims together. In Ammerman, the factual

circumstances surrounding the state claim informed the federal claim and a plaintiff would have to

explain the facts behind one for the jury to understand the other. In Lyon and Soliday, the

circumstances surrounding the state claims were not relevant to presenting the federal claims and

vice versa. The present case involves an alleged series of events implicating how the County of

Monterey oversees child welfare. County Defendants note that Allen states in her opposition that

the two sets of claims are "starkly different." County Defendants misconstrue Allen's statement. 

While the legal theories underlying the two sets of claims are starkly different, the factual

underpinnings of each set of claims are relevant to each other. Both sets of claims implicate the

practices and procedures of Monterey County in how it investigates abuse, reports abuse and

responds to allegations of abuse, and the alleged facts underlying the County's failures in December

2004 when Allen's children were removed are relevant to the County's alleged failures throughout

2005. The Sifuenteses argue that no "common nucleus" exists because the events underlying the

federal claims took place in December 2004 while the events underlying the state claims took place

during 2005. The Sifuenteses correctly point out that the events did not overlap, but cannot deny

that the December 2004 events resulting in the children's removal are factually connected and

relevant to the events culminating in Jaime's death in their care in 2005. But for the removal of the

children, they would not have been placed in the Sifuenteses' care. Because the critical background

of how the County of Monterey oversees its child welfare operations is relevant to each set of

claims, one would expect to try the claims together, and therefore the claims form one constitutional

case under Article III, and therefore satisfy section 1367(a).

2. Discretion

County Defendants and the Sifuenteses also argue that the court should exercise its discretion

to decline jurisdiction over the wrongful death claims. Section 1367(c) restricts the court's

discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction, permitting it only under certain statutory conditions. 

See Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of Calif., 24 F.3d 1545,

1555-56 (9th Cir. 1994). County Defendants and the Sifuenteses invoke section 1367(c)(2), arguing

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 8 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 9

that the state wrongful death claims substantially predominate over the section 1983 claims over

which this court has original jurisdiction. Non-federal claims only "substantially predominate"

where litigating them in federal court "can accurately be described as allowing a federal tail to wag

what is in substance a state dog." See De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 309 (3d Cir.

2003). This case presents two serious sets of claims, neither one of which "substantially" outweighs

the other. Even if the statutory condition of "substantial predomination" were triggered here, the

court would still have to weigh the "economy, convenience, fairness, and comity" of declining

supplemental jurisdiction. Executive Software, 24 F.3d at 1557. The claims in this case share a

factual background, and splitting the claims would not serve economy or convenience. Nor would it

be fair to deprive plaintiff of her choice of forum. While respect for comity counsels in favor of

allowing a state court to determine Allen's wrongful death claims, no party has suggested that the

claims present novel or complex issues of state law.

County Defendants also argue that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction under

1367(c)(4) because "other compelling reasons" like "confusion of issues, prejudice to County

defendants and judicial economy" warrant dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held in Executive Software

that "the bases for declining jurisdiction should be extended beyond the circumstances identified in

subsections (c)(1)-(3) only if the circumstances are quite unusual." Id. at 1557-58. The Ninth

Circuit also emphasized that (c)(4) may be invoked only in "exceptional circumstances." Id. While

heartbreaking, the issues raised in Allen's complaint are not exceptionally confusing. County

Defendants suggest that maintaining the state law claims in federal court exceptionally prejudices

them, but County Defendants do not explain why. Nor do County Defendants explain how judicial

economy would be exceptionally enhanced by dismissing Allen's wrongful death claims. 

Accordingly, the court finds that no "exceptional circumstance" exists to justify declining

supplemental jurisdiction over Allen's wrongful death claims and denies County Defendants' and the

Sifuenteses' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

B. Failure to Join a Necessary Party

The court's June 18, 2007 order dismissed the wrongful death claims for failure to join

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 9 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 10

Antonio Mendoza Ceballos, the father of Jaime. In filing her second amended complaint, Allen has

added Ceballos as a "nominal defendant." SAC ¶ 18. No cause of action, however, lists Ceballos as

a defendant. County Defendants and the Sifuenteses argue that Allen's failure to allege any causes

of action against Ceballos compels dismissing the wrongful death claims for failure to join a

necessary party.

Defendants' argument strains credibility. California law requires joining Ceballos because he

has a legally cognizable interest in the alleged wrongful death of Jaime as Jaime's father. His legal

interest – as a plaintiff – required the previous dismissal of the wrongful death claims. He has now

been named as a nominal defendant and received notice of this action. See Waiver of Service,

Docket No. 61. Nothing more is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) ("If the person should join as a

plaintiff, but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or in a proper case, an

involuntary plaintiff."); see also Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg, 53 Cal. App. 4th 801, 807-808 (1997)

(requiring only "that all heirs are before the court in the same action"). To dismiss Allen's wrongful

death claims for failing to list Ceballos' name under the heading of each wrongful death claim would

not promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action. Accordingly, the court

denies the motions to dismiss on these grounds.

C. Motion to Strike

County Defendants also move to strike twenty nine (29) allegations from Allen's Second

Amended Complaint. These allegations can be divided into two groups: additional allegations and

punitive damages allegations. The court deals with the second group of allegations first.

The court's June 18, 2007 order granted a motion to strike all punitive damages allegations

against the County. Allen concedes that item 28, a punitive damages allegation against the County,

should be stricken and apologizes for including it in the Second Amended Complaint. The court

therefore orders Item 28 stricken.

Items 25, 26, and 27 stem from paragraph 102 of the complaint, reproduced below with

added emphasis:

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 10 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 11

Further, the actions of individual defendants were malicious, oppressive, shocking to

the conscience of the reasonable person, and despicable in the extreme, and as such,

entitle plaintiff to an award of punitive damages for the sake of example and by way

of punishing the defendants. The defendant supervisors are guilty of fraud, malice

and oppression in that they authorized and/or ratified the conduct complained of

herein, and/or conspired in the acts and omissions complained of herein.

County Defendants argue that the reference to "the defendants" refers to all defendants, and not just

individual defendants. County Defendants misread paragraph 102, which is limited only to

individual defendants. As there is nothing improper about Allen's pleading punitive damages

against the individual defendants, the court denies County Defendants' motion to strike items 25, 26,

and 27.

The County Defendants also move to strike the phrase "and agency/entity defendants" from

the prayer for relief requesting punitive damages. The prayer for relief for punitive damages is

alleged against "the individual defendants and agency/entity defendants as applicable." Punitive

damages are not applicable to the agency/entity defendants in this case. Because there is no reason

to include the "agency/entity defendants" in this paragraph of the prayer for relief, the court orders

Item 29 stricken.

The County Defendants' motion to strike the other twenty four designated allegations borders

on frivolous. The court's June 18, 2007 order gave Allen thirty days "to amend the dismissed

claims." Allen filed a second amended complaint, which added various factual allegations to the

complaint. It did not add any new claims. County Defendants move to strike these additional

allegations because they exceed the scope of Allen's permission to amend her claims. County

Defendants' emphatic argument ("These [allegations] were added without leave of court.") does not

mention how these additional allegations prejudice them. Nor does the court believe that plaintiff

has "subver[ted] jusice through a sleight of hand." The court's order granting leave to "amend the

dismissed claims" could fairly be interpreted to include leave to add factual allegations that bolster

the dismissed claims. The court therefore denies the motion to strike items 1 through 24. 

III. ORDER

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 11 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 12

For the reasons set forth above, the court denies County Defendants' and the Sifuenteses'

motions to dismiss and the County Defendants' motion to remand. The court grants in part and

denies in part County Defendants' motion to strike as follows:

1. The motion to strike items 1 to 27 is denied.

2. The motion to strike items 28 and 29 is granted.

DATED: 10/19/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 12 of 13
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 ORDER DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND STATE CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING THE SIFUENTESES' MOTION TO DISMISS.

C-06-07293 RMW

TSF 13

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Robert Ross Powell rpowell@rrpassociates.com

Dennis R. Ingols dingols@rrpassociates.com

Douglas D. Durward Doug@durwardlaw.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Elizabeth Mary Kessel EMKessel@kesselaw.com

Scott Edward Boyer SEBoyer@kesselaw.com

Alison Yew yew@lbbslaw.com

Irene Takahashi takahashi@lbbslaw.com

Notice of this document has been mailed to:

Douglas Tsuchiya

341 Capitol Street, #1

Salinas, CA. 93901

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

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

Dated: 10/19/07 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-07293-RMW Document 64 Filed 10/19/07 Page 13 of 13