Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00992/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00992-1/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 

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 

C

C

I.

Off

jur

Pre

Co

or, 

the

Mo

II.

Pol

 

1 U

HAU VAN,

v. 

ITY OF OA

INTRO

Plaintif

fficers Howa

isdiction of t

esently befor

mplaint (“M

in the Alter

e Motions wa

otion for Lea

BACK

A. F

1.

On Dec

lice Departm

 

Unless otherw

Plaintiff, 

AKLAND, et

Defendants

ODUCTION

ff Chau Van 

ard Jordan, Jo

the undersig

re the Court 

Motion for Le

native, Parti

as held on Fr

ave to Amen

GROUND 

actual Back

. Events of

cember 9, 20

ment and rep

 

wise stated, t

UNITED

NORTHER

t al., 

s. 

N

brings this c

ohnna Watso

gned United 

are two mot

eave to Ame

ial Summary

riday, Febru

nd is DENIE

kground1

f December 

011, an empl

orted that a 

 

the facts belo

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

civil rights a

on and Cynth

States Magi

tions: 1) Plai

end”); and 2)

y Judgment (

uary 27, 2015

D. The Sum

9, 2011 

loyee of Kai

man named

ow are undis

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

ORDER D

LEAVE T

COMPLA

DEFENDA

SUMMAR

ALTERNA

JUDGMEN

Re: Dkt. N

action agains

thia Perkins. 

istrate Judge

intiff’s Moti

) Defendants

(“Summary J

5 at 2:00 pm

mmary Judgm

ser Oakland

Quyen Ngu

sputed. 

COURT 

IFORNIA 

13-cv-00992

DENYING M

O FILE A F

AINT AND G

ANTS' MOT

RY JUDGM

ATIVE, PA

NT 

Nos. 46, 56 

st Defendant

 The parties

e pursuant to 

ion for Leav

s’ Motion fo

Judgment M

m. For the re

ment Motion

d called the O

uyen had com

2-JCS 

MOTION F

FIRST AME

GRANTING

TION FOR

MENT OR, I

ARTIAL SU

ts City of Oa

s have conse

28 U.S.C. §

e to File Firs

or Summary 

Motion”). A 

easons stated

n is GRANT

Oakland

me into the e

FOR 

ENDED 

G

R

IN THE 

MMARY 

akland and 

ented to the 

§ 636(c). 

st Amended 

Judgment 

hearing on 

d below, the 

TED. 

emergency 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 34
2 

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 

room with “multiple abrasions to his face, a bloody lip and possibly some chipped teeth” and that 

he was “quite dazed.” Declaration of Ametrius Sidney in Support of Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Sidney Decl.”), Exhibit A. According to the employee, the man said that he had been 

assaulted outside the Fortune Restaurant on Webster Street in Oakland by a friend of his sister’s 

ex-boyfriend. Id. The 911 operator told the employee that she believed that an officer had already 

been sent out to investigate the incident earlier in the evening but that an officer would be 

dispatched to Kaiser if more information was needed. Id. Oakland police officer Astra Goddard 

was dispatched to Kaiser Hospital, where she “made contact” with Mr. Nguyen and photographed 

his injuries. Declaration of Astra Goddard in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 

(“Goddard Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-5 & Exhibit A (photographs).2

 In the meantime, Oakland Police Officers Roger Lee and John O’Reilly had been 

dispatched the same evening to Summit Hospital to speak with another man who had come to the 

emergency room there reporting an assault, Richard Lei. Declaration of DeWitt Lacy in Support 

of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, 

Partial Summary Judgment (“Lacy Decl.”), Ex. A (Lei Dep.) at 24; id., Ex. B (Jimenez Dep.), Ex. 

3 (Incident Report). The Incident Report, completed by Officer Lee, states, in part, as follows: 

On December 9, 2011, at around 0500 hours, Officer J. O’Reilly and 

I responded to Summit Hospital to locate an assault victim. Upon 

arrival in the ER Officer O’Reilly and I located victim Lei Wen who 

stated that someone hit him in the head with a bat. V1 Lei had 

bandages on his head and cuts and bruises to his face. V1 Lei had a 

two inch cut above his right eye and a swollen right cheek. V1 Lei 

stated that around 0230 hours, December 9, 2011, he went to a 

restaurant on the corner of 10th and Webster St. V1 said that an 

unidentified male Asian hit him two times with a wooden baseball 

bat above his right eye and cheek area. V1 said that after he was hit 

he ran two blocks away and called his sister to pick him up. V1 

stated that his sister drove him to Summit Hospital and medical staff 

called the police. V1 stated that he cannot identify who hit him and 

can provide no further information about the incident. 

Lacy Decl., Ex. B (Jimenez Dep.), Ex. 3. According to the Incident Report, Officer Goddard also 

photographed Mr. Lei’s injuries. Id. 

 

2

 There is no incident report in the record with respect to this call. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

Inv

wh

Mo

2. 

“be

the

wh

not

bot

ass

and

to O

sta

Tra

abo

Off

6. 

Sup

(“J

con

is “

Off

frie

Ng

2.

On Dec

vestigation D

ho identified 

otion for Sum

According t

eat up in fron

e person who

ho beat him u

t witness the

th Andrew a

saulted Quye

d could prov

Officer Tran

tion so they 

an Decl. ¶ 5.

After O

out the call, p

fficer Jimene

Officer Jime

pport of Mo

Jimenez Dec

nversation w

“Chau Van” 

fficer Jimene

end of her ex

Officer 

guyen, he wa

. Police Int

cember 13, 2

Division of th

herself as T

mmary Judgm

to Officer Tr

nt of the For

o beat up her

up.” Tran De

e assault on h

and Quyen (t

en.” Tran De

vide the polic

n, he told Ms

could be int

. 

Officer Tran g

provided Of

ez to take the

enez called M

tion for Sum

l.”) ¶ 4. Of

with Ms. Ngu

and that he 

ez, Ms. Nguy

x- boyfriend

Jimenez sta

as able to loc

terviews of T

2011, Officer

he Oakland P

Tiffany Huon

ment or, in t

ran, Ms. Ngu

rtune Restau

r brother, and

ecl. ¶ 3. He 

her brother b

the victim) to

ecl. ¶ 4. Offi

ce departmen

s. Nguyen th

terviewed ab

got off the p

fficer Jimene

e lead in the 

Ms. Nguyen

mmary Judgm

fficer Jimene

uyen, she tol

had a dragon

yen explaine

. Jimenez D

ates in his de

cate a Chau N

3

Tiffany, An

r Phong Tran

Police Depa

ng Nguyen. 

the Alternati

uyen told him

urant in Oakl

d that her br

further state

but her broth

old her that i

ficer Tran sta

nt with infor

hat she and h

bout the assa

phone with M

ez with Ms. N

investigation

n shortly ther

ment or, in th

ez states in h

ld him that th

n tattoo on h

ed that she kn

Decl. ¶ 6. 

eclaration tha

Ngoc Van in

ndrew and Q

n, who was 

artment, rece

Declaration 

ive, Partial S

m that her br

land a few ni

rother wante

es that “Ms. N

her Andrew N

it was her ex

ates that Ms.

rmation abou

her brothers n

ault on Quye

Ms. Nguyen,

Nguyen’s co

n and follow

reafter. Dec

he Alternativ

his declaratio

he name of t

his back. Jim

nows Chau V

at with the in

n the Alamed

Quyen Nguy

working in t

eived a teleph

of Phong T

Summary Jud

rother, Quye

ights earlier,

d to file a re

Nguyen exp

Nguyen witn

x-boyfriend’

. Nguyen tol

ut him. Tran

needed to co

en and Ms. N

 he told Offi

ontact inform

w-up with M

claration of H

ve, Partial Su

on that durin

the person w

menez Decl. 

Van because

nformation p

da County C

yen 

the Criminal

hone call fro

. Tran in Sup

dgment (“Tr

en Nguyen, h

, that she cou

eport against

plained . . . 

nessed the as

s friend ‘Ch

ld him she kn

n Decl. ¶ 4. 

ome down to

Nguyen agree

ficer Hector J

mation, and a

Ms. Nguyen. T

Hector Jimen

ummary Jud

ng his telepho

who assaulted

¶ 5. Accor

e Mr. Van is 

provided by 

Consolidated

l

om a woman

pport of 

ran Decl.”) ¶

had been 

uld identify 

t the person 

that she did 

ssault and 

hau’ who 

new “Chau”

According 

o the police 

ed to do so. 

Jimenez 

asked 

Tran Decl. ¶

nez in 

dgment 

one 

d her brother

rding to 

a good 

Ms. 

d Records 

n

¶ 

”

r

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 34
4 

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 

Information Management System (CRIMS). Jimenez Decl. ¶ 7. He states that “[a]rrangements 

had been made for Ms. Nguyen to come to the police station with her brothers Quyen Nguyen and 

Andrew Tien Nguyen in the afternoon on December 13, 2011 so they could be interviewed about 

the assault on Quyen.” Jimenez Decl. ¶ 8. According to Officer Jimenez, prior to their arrival at 

the police station, he compiled two separate photo arrays that included a photograph of the Chau 

Ngoc Van he located in the CRIMS database and five additional photographs of male Asians with 

features similar to Mr. Van. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 9. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on December 13, 

2011, Ms. Nguyen arrived at the police station with her brothers Quyen Nguyen and Andrew Tien 

Nguyen. Jimenez Decl. at ¶ 10. 

Officers Tran and Jimenez interviewed Ms. Nguyen first, outside the presence of her 

brothers. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 11 & Exhibit A (Video Recording of Tiffany Nguyen Interview, Time 

Counter 4:36:05 - 4:59:20). During the interview, Ms. Nguyen suggested to the officers that a 

custody battle between her and her ex-boyfriend, Samson Lam, might be linked to the assault on 

her brother Quyen. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 12 & Exhibit A (Video Recording of Tiffany Nguyen 

Interview, Time Counter 4:36:05 - 4:59:20); id., Ex. E (transcript of Video Recording) at 15. In 

particular, Ms. Nguyen explained that when she confronted Mr. Lam about her brother being 

assaulted by Chau Van, he denied knowing anything about the assault but admitted to telling his 

friend about their custody battle. Id. Ms. Nguyen stated that her brother Quyen thought that the 

incident was linked to the custody battle. Id. During the interview, Ms. Nguyen also told the 

officers that she had seen her ex-boyfriend’s friend, Chau Van, many times in the past. Id. 

Officer Jimenez showed Ms. Nguyen an unmarked photograph of the Chau Ngoc Van he had 

located in the CRIMS database and she immediately confirmed that the Chau Ngoc Van in the 

photograph was the same Chau Van she had been referring to and she knew as a friend of her exboyfriend, Samson. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 13 & Exhibit A (Video Recording of Tiffany Nguyen 

Interview, Time Counter 4:46:54 - 4:47:06; 4:53:10 - 4:53:18). 

 Next, Officers Tran and Jimenez interviewed Andrew Tien Nguyen outside of the presence 

of his sister. Jimenez Decl., ¶ 14. During the interview, Andrew told the officers that on the night 

of the assault, he and his brother Quyen went out for a late dinner at the Fortune Restaurant in 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 34
5 

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 

Oakland. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 15 & Exhibit A, (Video Recording of Andrew Tien Nguyen, Time 

Counter 5:03:12- 5:07:43). According to Andrew, he and his brother did not immediately enter 

the restaurant but instead stood out front while Quyen smoked a cigarette. Id. Andrew stated that 

while Quyen was smoking his cigarette, Andrew saw “Chau” approach with a couple of other 

guys. Id. Andrew walked over to “Chau” to say “hey” because Andrew had not seen “Chau” in 4 

or 5 years. Id. Andrew said that “Chau” greeted him back and then pointed at Quyen and said 

“hey isn’t that Tiffany’s brother Quyen.” Id. According to Andrew, he said “yes” and then 

“Chau” and his friends walked towards Quyen. Id. Andrew said that everything seemed “cool” so 

he went inside the Fortune Restaurant to get a table. Id. The next thing Andrew recalled was 

seeing his brother on the ground being hit with a bat, punched and kicked. Id. Andrew stated that 

the man hitting Quyen with a bat was not “Chau” but rather one of the men who was with “Chau.” 

Id. According to Andrew, “Chau” was just kicking. Id. Andrew said he ran to help his brother 

and “Chau” and the other guys jumped in a silver Mercedes and took off. Id. Officer Jimenez 

showed Andrew the six person photo array he compiled containing the photograph of Chau Ngoc 

Van from the CRIMS database in the number 2 position. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 16. Andrew 

immediately identified Chau Ngoc Van from the photo array as the “Chau” he saw assaulting his 

brother in front of the Fortune Restaurant. Jimenez Decl. at ¶ 13 & Exhibit A (Video Recording 

of Andrew Tien Nguyen, Time Counter 5:13:51- 5:14:15). Andrew told Officers Jimenez and 

Tran that his brother Quyen had “two broken jaws” from the assault and that the previous day 

Queyen had had an operation and so his jaw was wired shut. Lacy Decl., Ex. E (Video Recording 

transcript) at 61. 

Officers Tran and Jimenez met with Quyen Nguyen last, outside the presence of his 

brother and sister. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 18 & Exhibit A (Video Recording of Quyen Nguyen 

Interview, Time Counter 5:27:10- 5:42). Quyen had difficulty speaking and so Officers Tran and 

Jimenez did not conduct a full interview. Jimenez Decl. ¶19 & Exhibit A (Video Recording of 

Quyen Nguyen Interview, Time Counter 20 5:27:10- 5:42). Office Jimenez showed Quyen the six 

person photo array he compiled containing the photograph of Chau Ngoc Van from the CRIMS 

database in the number 4 position. Jimenez Decl. ¶ 20 & Exhibit A (Video Recording of Quyen 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

Ng

app

“Ch

(Vi

“Ch

on 

9, 2

Ca

Pla

Par

Id.

Id. 

off

inju

trea

De

guyen Intervi

proximately 

hau” who as

ideo Record

hau” had hit

3.

An enti

December 9

2011, he and

lifornia, whe

aintiff’s Opp

rtial Summa

, ¶¶ 4-5. Cha

¶ 5. He sta

ficers while h

uries includi

atment. Id. 

ecember 9, 2

iew, Time C

10 to 15 sec

ssaulted him

ding of Quye

t him with a 

. Chau Van

irely differen

9, 2011 was p

d his friend, 

ere they plan

position To D

ary Judgment

As Richard 

and we gre

including hi

many years

Quyen Ngu

Nguyen app

unable to s

began speak

with Richar

attempted to

group hit R

trying to he

was also hit

going on I w

attacked, ot

group of me

friend we c

our friend’s

au Van state

ates further R

he was at the

ing a large b

¶ 6. Chau V

011 assault. 

Counter 24 5:

conds and th

m in front of t

n Nguyen In

baseball bat

n’s Account

nt description

provided by

Richard Lei

nned to meet

Defendants’ 

t (“Van Dec

and I appro

eted each o

is sister, Tiff

s. Andrew 

uyen and abo

peared drun

tand straigh

king roughly

rd and the 

o break up 

Richard in th

elp Richard 

t in the head 

was in fear o

thers came t

en beating u

called to hav

 car and left

s that Richar

Richard told 

e hospital. I

bump, the siz

Van also stat

Id., ¶ 7. 

6

:34:25 - 5:35

en identified

the Fortune R

nterview, Tim

t, Quyen said

t of the Even

n of the even

y Plaintiff Ch

, decided to 

t a friend. D

Motion For 

l.”) ¶ 2. He 

oached the r

ther. I have

fany Nguyen

Nguyen wa

out seven (7

nk, he was s

ht. . . . As A

y to Richard

group of m

the fight an

he head with

I was attack

with a baseb

of my life. . 

to the scene 

us. As Richar

ve dinner w

 the scene. 

rd went to S

him the nex

d. ¶ 7. Acc

ze of an egg”

tes that he w

5:24). Quye

d Chau Ngoc

Restaurant. 

me Counter 

d he was “no

nts of Decem

nts that occu

hau Van. Ac

go to Fortun

Declaration O

Summary Ju

describes w

restaurant I 

e known An

n and brothe

as accompan

7) to eight (8

slurring his 

Andrew and

d and sudde

men with Qu

nd help Rich

h by a baseb

ked and had

ball bat. At t

. . As Rich

 helped us t

rd and I ran 

with us. We 

Summit Hosp

xt day that he

cording to Ch

” on his fore

was never con

en reviewed 

c Van from t

Jimenez De

5:34:2 - 5:3

ot sure if it w

mber 9, 201

urred outside

ccording to C

ne Restauran

Of Chau Van

udgment Or,

what occurred

saw Andrew

ndrew and h

er, Quyen Ng

nied by his

8) other men

words and 

d I converse

enly a fight b

uyen and A

hard. Someo

ball bat. Wh

d to defend 

the time the 

hard and I w

to get away

get away w

immediately

pital to be tre

e had been in

hau Van, he 

ehead, but he

ntacted by th

the photo ar

the photo arr

ecl. ¶ 26 & E

5:24). When

was a bat or a

11 

e the Fortune

Chau Van, o

nt in Oakland

n In Support 

, In The Alte

d there as fo

w Nguyen 

is family, 

guyen, for 

s brother, 

n. Quyen 

appeared 

ed, Quyen 

broke out 

Andrew. I 

one in the 

hile I was 

myself. I 

fight was 

were being 

y from the 

we saw the 

y got into 

eated for his

nterviewed b

suffered “se

e did not seek

he police abo

rray for 

ray as the 

Exhibit A 

n asked if 

a pipe.” Id.

e Restaurant

on December

d, 

Of 

ernative, 

llows: 

s injuries. 

by police 

everal 

k medical 

out the 

t

r

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

the

aff

sta

pre

aff

Lee

for

Oa

De

De

Ch

des

Off

Pol

An

the

at 4

Oa

Jor

Va

pre

ent

Oa

4.

On Dec

e arrest of Ch

fidavit descri

ting that Tif

esented to th

fidavit does n

e and O’Rei

r assault with

5.

On Feb

akland Police

epartment, in

ecl., Ex. C (W

hief Jordon re

scription of C

fficer Watson

lice Departm

nthony Racha

e information

44. She wor

akland Police

On Feb

rdan, about a

an was identi

ess release pr

titled “Oakl

akland’s “Mo

. Issuance 

cember 19, 2

hau Ngoc Va

ibed the inte

ffany and Qu

em, and that

not mention 

lly. Magistr

h a deadly w

. February

bruary 7, 201

e Departmen

ncluding Chi

Watson Dep.

egarding Oa

Chau Van, w

n, the docum

ment’s Crimi

al headed th

n provided to

rked with De

e Departmen

bruary 7, 201

a spike in cri

ified as one o

repared by W

and Police C

ost Wanted.”

of Arrest W

2011, Officer

an for assaul

rviews with 

uyen Nguyen

t Andrew Ng

Richard We

rate Judge Sa

weapon on th

y 7, 2012 Pre

12, Officer Jo

nt, attended a

ef Howard J

) at 34-40. A

akland’s five

who was wan

ment she rece

inal Investig

e Criminal I

o her to prep

efendant Cyn

nt, to prepare

12, a press co

ime in Oakla

of Oakland's

Watson and P

Chief Speaks

” Id. & Ex. A

7

Warrant 

r Jimenez pr

lt with a dea

Tiffany Ngu

n “instantly”

guyen “imm

ei or the incid

arkisian issu

at same date

ess Release

ohnna Watso

a meeting wi

Jordan, to pr

At the meeti

most wante

nted in conn

eived from C

gation Divisio

nvestigation

pare the pres

nthia Perkin

e and issue th

onference w

and. Watson

s “Most Wan

Perkins, disc

s to the Spik

A. 

repared an af

adly weapon

uyen, Andre

” recognized 

mediately” rec

dent report p

ued a warran

e. Jimenez D

on, the Publi

ith several m

repare for an

ing, Officer 

ed criminals,

nection with 

Chief Jordon

on. Id. at 43

n Division. I

ss release for

ns, the public

he press rele

was held by fo

n Decl. ¶ 2. 

nted.” Watso

cussed above

ke in Crime”

ffidavit in su

based. Jime

ew Nguyen a

Chau Van f

cognized Ch

prepared the

nt for the arre

Decl. ¶ 24, E

ic Informatio

members of t

n upcoming p

Watson rece

, which inclu

a shooting. 

n was prepare

3. In Februa

Id. at 34. Of

r the upcomi

c safety write

ease. Id. at 5

former Chief

During the p

on Decl. ¶ 3.

e, was issued

 and identif

upport of a w

enez Decl., E

and Quyen N

from the pho

hau Van. Id

e same night 

est of Chau N

Exhibit B. 

on Officer fo

the Oakland 

press confere

eived a docu

uded a photo

Id. at 40. A

ed by the Oa

ary of 2012, 

fficer Watso

ing press con

er employed

59-60. 

f of Police, H

press confer

. On the sam

d. Id. ¶ 4. I

fied Chau Va

warrant for 

Ex. B. The 

Nguyen, 

oto line-up 

d. The 

by Officers

Ngoc Van 

for the 

Police 

ence. Lacy 

ument from 

ograph and 

According to

akland 

Captain 

on relied on 

nference. Id

d by the 

Howard 

rence, Chau 

me day, the 

It was 

an as one of 

o

d. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 7 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

frie

tha

frie

Id.

Sum

som

“w

wa

acc

at t

Id. 

arr

Sum

Ne

arr

6.

Accord

end telling h

at he was “co

end’s house.

; Declaratio

mmary Judg

me point, Mr

why Mr. Van 

anted crimina

On Feb

companied b

the police sta

at ¶¶ 10-11.

ested. Wats

mmary Judg

either particip

ested until a

After b

. Chau Van

ding to Chau 

him he had b

onfused and 

 Id. ¶ 9. H

on of Stuart H

gment or, in t

r. Hanlon sp

had a warra

als.” Hanlon

bruary 13, 20

by his attorne

ation: 

About a w

myself in 

checked in a

arrest, the p

wait. The p

That Latino

to be interr

attorney to 

. During the

being arrest

officer said 

asked me if

officer aske

know Wen 

“no.” The L

not know a

Latino offic

. Neither Jo

son Decl. ¶ 6

gment or, in t

pated in the 

after the arres

eing arrested

n’s Self-Sur

Van, after th

een named o

very scared”

He then sough

Hanlon in Su

the Alternati

poke with som

ant for a shoo

n Decl. ¶ 4.

012, Chau V

ey. Van Dec

week later an

at the Oak

at the front d

person at th

person at the

o officer plac

rogated. At

accompany 

e initial ques

ted for being

“no” this w

f I was a ga

ed me did I k

Chuang Lei

Latino office

a Wen Chua

cer arrested m

ohnna Watso

6; Declaratio

the Alternati

arrest of Ch

st occurred.

d and booked

8

rrender and

he press con

one of Oakla

” and that he

ht the advice

upport of Pla

ive, Partial S

meone at the

oting, and w

an turned him

cl. ¶ 10. He 

nd accompa

kland Police

desk and ask

he front desk

e front desk

ced me in ha

t this time, 

me into the 

stioning with

g one of Oak

was about ano

ang member

know Wen C

i was Richar

er asked me 

ang Lei and 

me but never

on nor Cynth

on of Cynthi

ive, Partial S

au Van or ha

Id. 

d, Chau Van

d Arrest 

nference, he 

and’s “Most 

e did not go 

e of a crimin

aintiff’s Opp

Summary Ju

e Oakland Po

why he was cl

mself into th

offers the fo

anied by m

e Departmen

ked if there 

k said “no,”

k returned w

andcuff and 

the officer 

room where

h the Latino

kland Most W

other inciden

r. I said “n

Chuang Lei. 

rd Lei’s, Ch

was I sure, 

that I want

r told me the

hia Perkins w

ia Perkins in

Summary Ju

ad any know

n was sent to

received a te

Wanted.” V

to work for 

nal defense a

position to D

udgment (“H

olice Depart

lassified as o

he Oakland P

ollowing acc

my attorney, 

nt. Initially

was a warra

” but then to

with a Latin

took me int

would not 

e I was ques

o officer I as

Wanted Crim

nt. The Latin

no.” Then th

At the time,

hinese name,

and I stated 

ted my attor

e charges ag

was present a

n Support of 

udgment (“Pe

wledge that M

o Santa Rita 

elephone cal

Van Decl. ¶ 

a week or le

attorney, Stua

Defendants’ M

Hanlon Decl.”

tment to try t

one of Oakla

Police Depar

count of wha

I turned 

, when I 

ant for my 

old me to 

no officer. 

to a room 

allow my 

stioned. . . 

ked was I 

minal. The 

no officer 

he Latino 

, I did not 

, so I said 

that I did 

rney. The 

ainst me. 

at the time M

Defendants’

erkins Decl.”

Mr. Van had

Jail and plac

ll from a 

8. He states

eave his 

art Hanlon. 

Motion for 

”) ¶ 3. At 

to determine

and’s most 

rtment, 

at occurred 

Mr. Van was

’ Motion for

”) ¶ 4. 

d been 

ced in 

s

e

s

r

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 8 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

ma

eig

him

aga

Jim

Cit

Do

for

aga

Mo

Cit

vio

aximum secu

ght (48) hour

m. Id. He w

ainst him. Id

7.

Plaintif

menez.: 

 In or ar

Police 

(“POST

 At the 

training

was a s

Id. at 2

 In Dec

investi

warran

 Officer

the tim

B. C

Chau V

ty of Oaklan

oes 1-100. Pl

r violation of

ainst Defend

onell v. Dep’

ty and Chief

olation of Pla

urity. Van D

rs. Id. Acco

was released 

d. 

. Training

ff presents th

round 2007,

Department

T”) certified

police acade

g involved l

suspect, who

25. 

cember of 20

gator, he rec

nts. Id. at 22

r Jimenez ha

me of the rele

Complaint 

Van filed the 

nd, Police Ch

laintiff asser

f his First an

dants Johnna

’t of Soc. Ser

f Jordan, bas

aintiff’s civil

Decl. ¶12. H

ording to Mr

from Santa 

of Officer J

he following 

 Officer Hec

t after his com

d police acad

emy, Jimene

earning how

o was a victi

011, shortly b

ceived appro

2. 

ad received n

evant events 

complaint in

hief Howard 

ts six claims

nd Fourth Am

a Watson and

rvices of City

ed on allege

l rights; 3) d

9

e remained t

. Van, he wa

Rita Jail afte

Jimenez 

evidence re

ctor Jimenez

mpletion at 

demy. Lacy 

ez received tr

w to divide pe

m and who w

before Offic

oximately 40

no specialize

in this case.

n this action

Jordan, Off

s in his comp

mendment r

d Cynthia Pe

y of New Yor

d ratification

defamation u

there for app

as never told

er the distric

egarding the 

z was hired a

a Police Off

Decl., Ex. B

raining in “p

eople, listen

was a witnes

cer Jimenez b

0 hours of tra

ed training re

. Id. at 21. 

n on March 5

ficer Watson

plaint: 1) vio

rights under U

erkins; 2) vio

rk, 436 U.S.

n of miscond

under state la

proximately 

d what charg

ct attorney d

background

as a police ca

ficer Standar

B (Jimenez D

preliminary i

n to them and

ss and determ

became a mi

aining in how

elating to as

5, 2013, nam

n and Officer

olation of 42

United State

olation of 42

. 659 (1978)

duct or failu

aw, asserted 

thirty-six (3

ges were filed

dropped the c

d and training

adet by the O

rds and Train

Dep.) at 13-1

investigation

d attempt to 

mine what h

isdemeanor a

w to draft se

sault investi

ming as defen

r Perkins, as 

2 U.S.C. § 19

es Constituti

2 U.S.C. § 19

, asserted ag

ure to train le

against Doe

36) to fortyd against 

charges 

g of Officer 

Oakland 

ning 

14. 

ns.” This 

identify who

happened. 

assault 

earch 

igations as o

ndants the 

well as 

983 claim 

ion, asserted 

983 under 

gainst the 

eading to 

e defendants 

o

f 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 9 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

onl

Int

as D

Do

cla

ass

on 

def

Fou

Off

arr

7-1

the

pre

sub

U.S

pre

any

at 1

and

the

ly; 4) false a

entional Infl

Doe defenda

oe Defendant

C. Su

1.

In their

aims except h

First, D

serted agains

alleged viol

fendant was 

urth Amendm

fficer Jimene

est does not 

11. 

Second

e extent it is b

esented any e

bjected to ad

Third, D

S.C. § 1983 

esent evidenc

y evidence th

12-13. 

Fourth,

d False Impr

ere is no evid

arrest and im

liction of Em

ants; and 6) 

ts. 

ummary Ju

. The Moti

r Motion, De

his Third Ca

Defendants co

st Defendant

lation of the 

involved in 

ment rights b

ez had probab

violate an in

d, Defendants

based on all

evidence tha

dverse action

Defendants c

by the City 

ce that he ha

hat the City 

 Defendants

risonment ag

dence that ei

mprisonment,

motional Dis

Negligence

udgment Mo

ion 

efendants ask

ause of Actio

ontend Plain

ts Watson an

Fourth Ame

any way in P

because it w

ble cause to 

ndividual’s F

s argue that 

eged violatio

at he engaged

n. Id. at 11-1

challenge Pl

of Oakland u

as been depri

was the “mo

s argue that P

gainst Defen

ther defenda

10

 asserted aga

tress, asserte

, asserted ag

otion 

k the Court t

on (which is 

ntiff’s First C

nd Perkins, f

endment bec

Plaintiff’s ar

was conducte

arrest in any

Fourth Amen

Plaintiff’s F

on of the Fir

d in constitu

12. 

aintiff’s Sec

under Monel

ived of any c

oving force”

Plaintiff’s Fo

dants Watso

ant played an

0

ainst Officer

ed against O

gainst Office

to enter summ

asserted aga

Cause of Act

fails as a mat

cause: 1) ther

rrest; 2) Plai

ed pursuant t

y event; and 

ndment righ

First Cause o

rst Amendm

utionally pro

cond Cause o

ll on the bas

constitutiona

” behind any 

ourth Cause 

on and Perkin

ny role in Pl

rs Watson an

Officers Wats

ers Watson a

mmary judgm

ainst Doe de

tion, under 4

tter of law to

re is no evid

intiff’s arres

to a facially 

d 3) a search 

hts. Summar

of Action fail

ment because 

otected speec

of Action, as

sis that 1) Pla

al right; and 

alleged con

of Action, a

ns, fails as a

laintiff’s arre

nd Perkins; 5

son and Perk

and Perkins, 

ment on all of

efendants onl

42 U.S.C. § 

o the extent i

dence that eit

t did not vio

valid warran

pursuant to 

ry Judgment 

ls as a matte

Plaintiff has

ch for which

sserting viol

aintiff has fa

2) he has fa

nstitutional v

asserting Fal

a matter of la

est. Id. at 13

5) 

kins, as well 

as well as 

f Plaintiff’s 

ly). 

1983, 

it is based 

ther 

olate his 

nt and 

a valid 

Motion at 

er of law to 

s not 

h he was 

ation of 42 

ailed to 

ailed to offer

violation. Id.

se Arrest 

aw because 

3. 

r

.

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 10 of 34
11 

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 

Fifth, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (False Arrest/ False 

Imprisonment), Fifth Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) and Sixth 

Cause of Action (Negligence) on the grounds that, to the extent these claims are based on 

Plaintiff’s arrest, they are barred under Cal. Civ. Code section 43.55(a), providing that “no cause 

of action shall arise against [ ] any peace officer who makes an arrest pursuant to a warrant of 

arrest regular upon its face if the peace officer in making the arrest acts without malice and in 

reasonable belief that the person arrested is the one referred to in the warrant.” Id. at 13-14. 

Defendants contend these three causes of action are barred under section 43.55(a) because Officer 

Jimenez had a good faith belief, based on his interviews with the Nguyen siblings, that Chau Van 

was involved in an assault on Quyen Nguyen and it is “indisputable” that Officer Jimenez 

reasonably believed Plaintiff was the person referred to in the warrant. Id. at 14. 

Sixth, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action are barred, to the 

extent the claims are based on public communications identifying Plaintiff as Oakland’s “Most 

Wanted,” under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Cal. Civ. Code section 

47(d)(1) and Cal. Gov’t Code section 821.6. Id. at 14-17. In particular, under the First 

Amendment, Defendants contend, speech on matters of public concern is protected and therefore 

may not be the basis for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligence. Id. at 

14-15. Further, Cal. Civ. Code section 47(d)(1) renders privileged any “fair and true report” of a 

“public official proceeding,” which Defendants contend includes police investigations. Id. at 15-

16. Defendants argue that the “fair and true” requirement of section 47(d)(1) is met so long as the 

statement captures the “gist” of what was said in the public proceeding and that here, this 

requirement was met because Chau Van was wanted for assault with a deadly weapon even if he 

was not wanted for a shooting. Id. at 16. Finally, Cal. Gov’t Code section 821.6 gives public 

employees immunity from liability for an injury caused by the employee’s “instituting or 

prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding . . . even if he acts maliciously and without 

probable cause.” Id. at 16. Defendants argue that this immunity is broadly construed and includes 

an investigation before the institution of a judicial proceeding. Id. According to Defendants, the 

statement that Chau Van was one of Oakland’s “Most Wanted”, both at the press conference and 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 11 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

in t

and

Ru

hav

pro

he 

cla

ext

ma

evi

con

Id. 

to O

inc

app

dif

and

in t

cau

as t

ass

we

rele

“in

198

the press rel

d therefore c

2.

Plaintif

ule 56(d) of t

ve hampered

obative evide

contends, D

aims. Id. 

With re

tent this § 19

atter of law. 

idence of a F

nstitutional r

at 14-17. In

Officers Lee

consistencies

parent testim

fferent man h

d incorrectly

the photo lin

use determin

to whether h

sertion that D

ere not involv

ease that ulti

ntegrally part

83. Id. 

ease, was “in

cannot give r

. Oppositio

ff argues that

the Federal R

d Plaintiff’s d

ence related 

Defendants’ S

espect to the 

983 claim is 

Id. at 14-19

Fourth Amen

rights when h

n support of 

e and O’Reil

s in the storie

mony that Ch

hit Quyen wi

y stated in th

ne-up. Id. U

nations, Plain

his Fourth Am

Defendants W

ved in Plaint

imately caus

ticipated” in

ncidental to 

rise to liabili

on 

t the Court s

Rules of Civ

discovery ef

to his claim

Summary Ju

First Cause 

based on an

9. First, Plain

ndment viola

he obtained 

this assertio

lly about the

es of the Ng

hau Van hit h

ith a bat and

e warrant af

Under the tot

ntiff contend

mendment r

Watson and P

tiff’s arrest. 

sed Chau Va

n the Fourth A

12

the police in

ity. Id. at 16

should defer 

il Procedure

fforts and Pla

ms. Oppositio

dgment Mot

of Action, P

n alleged viol

ntiff challen

ation, arguin

a warrant fo

on, Plaintiff c

December 9

uyen sibling

him with a b

d that Chau V

ffidavit that Q

tality of the c

ds, this evide

rights were v

Perkins cann

Id. at 18-19

an to self-sur

Amendment

2

nvestigation 

6-17. 

ruling on th

e to allow fur

aintiff only r

on at 13. Ev

tion should b

Plaintiff reje

lation of the

nges Defenda

ng that Office

or Chau Van

cites evidenc

9, 2011 incid

gs (including

bat or pipe an

Van did not h

Quyen Nguy

circumstance

ence is suffic

violated. Sec

not be liable 

9. According

rrender, Def

t violation an

of the assau

he Summary 

rther discove

recently lear

ven if the Co

be denied as

cts Defenda

e Fourth Am

ant’s content

er Jimenez v

n’s arrest that

ce that Offic

dent, failed t

g the conflict

nd Andrew’s

have a bat an

yen “instantl

es test that is

cient to dem

cond, Plainti

 for a Fourth

g to Defenda

fendants Wat

nd that is all

ult on Quyen

Judgment M

ery because 

rned of mate

ourt denies t

 to all of Pla

ants’ assertio

endment it f

tion that ther

violated Plai

t lacked prob

cer Jimenez f

to investigat

t between Qu

s testimony t

nd only kick

ly” identified

s applied to 

onstrate a fa

iff rejects De

h Violation b

ants, in issui

tson and Per

l that is requi

n Nguyen” 

Motion under

Defendants 

erial and 

this request, 

aintiff’s 

on that to the

fails as a 

re is no 

intiff’s 

bable cause.

failed to talk

te 

uyen’s 

that a 

ked Quyen), 

d Chau Van 

probable 

act question 

efendants’ 

because they

ing a press 

rkins 

ired under §

r

k

y

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 12 of 34
13 

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 

As to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim based on Defendants’ alleged violation of his First 

Amendment rights, Plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to conduct additional discovery in 

light of new information and witnesses of which he became aware only when Defendant Watson 

was deposed, on November 19, 2014. Id. at 19. 

Similarly, with respect to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action, asserted against the City of 

Oakland based on an alleged policy and practice of failing to train and supervise employees, 

Plaintiff asserts he has not yet been able to depose Chief Howard Jordan and that he just recently 

learned the identities of supervisors and heads of divisions in the Oakland Police Department who 

could provide “significant and relevant evidence of the Department’s and the City’s policies, 

practices and customs.” Id. at 20. Plaintiff further asserts that Officer Jimenez’s lack of training 

for the position of criminal investigator, as well the lack of adequate supervision, are sufficient to 

show a policy and custom of deliberate indifference to constitutional violations. Id. at 21. 

Plaintiff argues that his Fourth Cause of Action, for False Imprisonment and False Arrest, 

is sufficient to survive summary judgment because although Defendants Watson and Perkins did 

not actually arrest him, they played a role in issuing a press release that ultimately led to Chau 

Van’s self-surrender, culminating in his arrest. Id. at 21-22. 

Plaintiff rejects Defendants’ assertion that Cal. Civ. Code section 43.55(a)3 bars his Fifth 

and Sixth Causes of Action, arguing that this section does not apply because the warrant is not 

supported by probable cause and therefore Officer Jimenez could not have reasonably and in good 

faith relied upon it. Id. at 22. 

Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants’ reliance on the First Amendment with respect to 

the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action is misplaced because the statement at the press conference 

and in the press release that Chau Van was one of Oakland’s “Most Wanted” was not a matter of 

public concern or debate. Id. at 22-23. Plaintiff notes that the case cited by Defendants, Snyder v. 

Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011), involved two non-governmental parties and argues that therefore, 

it is not on point. Id. at 23. Plaintiff also asserts that as to this claim, discovery is ongoing and 

 

3

 Although Plaintiff refers to this section as 4.55(a) rather than 43.55(a), it is clear from context 

that this is a typographical error. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 13 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

“m

tru

bec

did

to t

wa

his

pre

lea

and

fur

56(

for

Pla

ass

Am

De

cau

De

rig

con

lac

many of the is

Plaintif

e” statement

cause the sta

d not cover th

the source o

as based on th

Finally,

s Fifth and Si

ess release w

ading up to su

3.

Defend

d argue that 

rther discove

(d) of the Fe

rth the specif

aintiff failed 

Defend

sertion that th

mendment vi

efendants Wa

used the viol

efendants als

hts by Offic

Defend

ntention that

ck of evidenc

ssues raised 

ff argues that

ts about pub

atement that 

he “gist” of t

f informatio

he affidavit 

, Plaintiff arg

ixth Causes 

were not part 

uch a procee

. Reply 

dants reject P

the Court sh

ery. Reply a

ederal Rules 

fic facts it ex

to pursue di

dants also cha

he First Cau

iolation. Id.

atson and Pe

lation” and t

o challenge 

er Jimenez, 

dants argue th

t the § 1983 

ce that Plaint

are prematu

t Cal. Civ. C

lic proceedin

he was one 

the proceedi

n contained 

of Officer Ji

gues that Ca

of Action be

of the filing

eding. Id. at

Plaintiff’s ass

hould not def

at 1. They ar

of Civil Pro

xpects to lear

iscovery dili

allenge Plain

use of Action

. at 3-6. Pla

erkins had no

herefore wer

Plaintiff’s re

pointing out

hat Plaintiff 

claim based

tiff engaged 

14

ure.” Id. 

Code section 

ngs, does no

of Oakland’

ing. Id. at 24

in the press 

imenez. Id. 

al. Gov’t Cod

ecause the st

g of a judicia

t 24-25. 

sertion that t

fer ruling on

rgue further 

cedure, requ

rn that justif

igently prior 

ntiff’s argum

n fails to the 

intiff’s argum

o “fundamen

re not “integ

eliance on th

t that Officer

has failed to

d on alleged v

in any prote

4

47(d)(1), w

ot defeat his 

s “Most Wa

4. Plaintiff c

release and 

 

de section 82

tatements m

al administra

they have hi

n their Summ

that Plaintiff

uiring that a 

fy the relief r

to summary

ments on the 

extent it is b

ments to the

ntal involvem

gral participa

he alleged vi

r Jimenez is 

o offer any s

violation of 

ected speech

which affords

Fifth and Si

anted” was n

contends the

even as to w

21.6 does no

made at the pr

ative proceed

indered Plain

mary Judgme

ff has failed t

party invoki

requested. I

y judgment. 

merits. Firs

based on an 

e contrary fai

ment in the c

ants” in Plain

iolation of h

not a defend

substantive r

the First Am

h. Id. at 6. N

s a privilege 

ixth Causes o

not “fair and 

ere is a fact q

whether the s

ot provide a 

ress conferen

ding or an in

ntiff’s discov

ent Motion to

to comply w

ing that prov

Id. They als

Id. at 2. 

st, they reite

alleged Four

il, they conte

conduct that 

ntiff’s arrest

is Fourth Am

dant in this c

esponse to th

mendment sh

Nor should th

to “fair and

of Action 

true” and 

question as 

statement 

defense to 

nce and the 

nvestigation 

very efforts 

o permit 

with Rule 

vision set 

o contend 

rate their 

rth 

end, because

allegedly 

t. Id. at 3-4

mendment 

case. Id. at 5

heir 

hould fail for

he Court 

d

e

. 

. 

r

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 14 of 34
15 

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 

accept Plaintiff’s assertion that more discovery is needed on this claim, they argue, given that the 

critical issue is whether Plaintiff engaged in protected speech. Id. 

With respect to the Monell claim against the City of Oakland, Defendants argue that a city 

policy based on failure to train can be established only when the failure to train reflects a 

“deliberate” or “conscious choice.” Id. at 7. According to Defendants, evidence as to a single 

officer, which is all that Plaintiff has offered here, is not sufficient to establish a municipal policy. 

Id. 

Defendants again argue that Cal. Civ. Code section 43.55(a) bars Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth 

Causes of Action, noting that Plaintiff does not dispute that the arrest warrant was facially valid. 

Id. at 7-8. To the extent Plaintiff argues that Officer Jimenez could not have relied on the warrant 

in good faith, Defendants argue that this evidence is not sufficient to show “malice” as would be 

required to defeat the immunity provided for under this section. Id. at 7-8. “Malice,” Defendants 

assert, exists only when an officer knowingly uses false information or purposely withholds 

exculpatory evidence. Id. There is no evidence that Officer Jimenez engaged in such intentional 

conduct, Defendants assert. Id. Even if he did, they argue, Defendants Watson and Perkins 

would still be entitled to immunity under this provision because there is no evidence that they 

were aware of any such conduct. Id. 

Defendants reiterate their assertion that the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s Fifth and 

Sixth Causes of Action, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the statements at issue are not matters 

of public concern. Defendants also point to a California case in which a court found that a 

defamation claim was barred under the First Amendment even as to “non-media defendants 

including public entities such as the City.” Id. at 9 (citing Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland, 47 

Cal. App. 4th 364, 372-373 (1996)). Defendants further assert that “minor inaccuracies” do not 

amount to falsity, and therefore, that the First Amendment protects the statements at issue here. 

Id. at 9-10. 

Finally, Defendants contend both Cal. Civ. Code section 47(d)(1) and Cal. Gov. Code 

Section 821.6 apply. Id. First, they argue that a statement is “fair and true” under section 47(d)(1) 

unless “the deviation is of such a substantial character that it produces a different effect on the 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 15 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

[lis

sta

tha

jud

De

Ng

Id.

4

Jim

Co

oth

ass

Pla

the

add

JIM

om

wa

this

wit

rela

wa

doc

 

4 D

be 

5 A

ass

stener or] rea

ndard is not 

at the stateme

dicial procee

efendants, “[i

guyen made a

4

D. M

1.

In his M

menez and A

mplaint to in

herwise reme

serts that und

aintiff to ame

e Court has n

dition, Plaint

MINEZ [sic]

mitted inform

arrant for Pla

s Court cont

th the arrest 

ating to the i

as not until “t

cument prod

 

Defendants d

included on 

As Plaintiff fa

signed to Do

ader.” Id. (q

met here, D

ents at issue 

ding but he 

i]t is no coin

a complaint 

Motion for L

. Motion 

Motion for L

Anthony Rach

nclude any i

edy any othe

der Rule 15(

end the comp

not yet set a 

tiff argues th

 indicates he

mation that ne

aintiff’s arres

tending no li

of Plaintiff e

investigative

the recent de

ductions” tha

 

o not, howev

the list of “M

failed to inclu

cket No. 56 

quoting Carv

Defendants co

were not re

has offered n

ncidence that

against Plain

Leave to Am

Leave to Ame

hal for Doe d

nadvertently

er pleading d

a) of the Fed

plaint becau

deadline for

hat leave to a

e was not pro

eeded to be d

st.” Id. He a

ist for ‘Most

exist or had 

e file of the a

epositions of

at Plaintiff le

 

ver, offer an

Most Wante

ude page num

by ECF, the

16

ver v. Bond, 

ontend. Id. S

leased as par

no evidence 

t the most w

ntiff and a w

mend 

end, Plaintif

defendants 1

y omitted ref

deficiencies.”

deral Rules o

use Defendan

r filing amen

amend is in t

operly traine

disclosed to 

also accuses

Wanted’ pe

existed at so

alleged assau

f Defendant 

earned of De

ny evidence a

ed.” 

mbers on his

e Court’s ele

6

135 Cal. Ap

Second, Def

art of an inve

 in support o

wanted statem

warrant for P

ff asks the C

1 and 2, and 

ferences, to c

” Motion fo

of Civil Proc

nts will not b

nded pleading

the interest o

ed in investig

the magistra

s Defendants

ersons ever e

ome point in

ult with a de

WATSON, 

efendants’ “f

about how it

s brief, the C

ectronic filin

pp. 4th 328, 3

fendants asse

estigation be

of his positio

ment was pub

Plaintiff’s arr

ourt for leav

to permit hi

correct any i

or Leave to A

cedure, the C

be unduly pr

gs or set a tr

of justice be

gations, and

ate in his aff

s of “misrepr

existed, no d

n the past, an

eadly weapon

JIMENEZ, 

falsehoods,”

t was decide

Court relies o

ng system. 

351 (2005))

ert, Plaintiff

fore the inst

on. Id. Acco

blished after

rest had been

ve to substitu

im to “amend

inartful verb

Amend at 5.5

Court should

rejudiced, no

rial date. Id.

cause “testim

d that he purp

fidavit to sup

resent[ing] k

documents as

nd/or no docu

n exist eithe

and supplem

 he asserts. 

ed that Chau 

on the page n

. That 

f has argued 

titution of a 

ording to 

r Quyen 

n procured.”

ute Hector 

d the 

biage, and 

5

 Plaintiff 

d permit 

oting that 

. at 5. In 

mony of 

posely 

pport the 

key facts to 

ssociated 

uments 

er.” Id. It 

mental 

Id. at 7. 

Van would 

numbers 

” 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 16 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

see

Pla

ass

abi

dis

Id. 

def

Pla

add

wh

WA

JIM

hav

15(

of L

of u

ori

Nor has

eking leave t

aintiff’s first 

serts, “[s]inc

ility to condu

scovery in th

at 4. 

Finally,

fendants rela

aintiff conten

dressed an in

ho was involv

ATSON, PE

MENEZ’S ro

ve received n

(c) are met a

Little Rock, A

2.

Defend

undue delay

ginal compl

s there been 

to amend, he

amendment

e the initiati

uct discovery

he following 

At the initia

several mon

stayed all di

at ¶¶2-5.) 

August 1, 2

Thereafter, 

delays by 

responses. (

was an ext

2014. (Lac

discovery b

at ¶¶13-15.)

noticed depo

, Plaintiff arg

ate back, und

nds, “Defend

ncident invol

ved in the co

ERKINS, and

ole in the unl

notice of the

as to both of 

Arkansas, 74

. Oppositio

dants argue th

y and also be

aint and are 

“undue dela

e argues. Id.

t to the origin

on of this ac

y.” Id. at 4. 

respects: 

al case man

nths for reas

iscovery unt

The Court 

2014 in its O

Plaintiff pr

requesting 

(Lacy Decl. 

tension of th

y Decl. at 

but again De

) These del

ositions. (La

gues that am

der Rule 15(

dants knew o

lving JIMIN

onstruction o

d JORDAN .

lawful arrest

e action. Id. 

the propose

41 F.2d 201

on 

hat Plaintiff’

cause the cla

thus untime

17

ay, bad faith 

 at 6. In pa

nal Complai

ction there ha

 In particula

nagement co

sons outside

til the parties

set the non

Order of Ap

opounded d

an extens

at ¶¶8-10.) 

he discover

¶13.) Plain

efendants del

ays resulted

acy Decl. at ¶

mendment is 

c), to the fili

or should hav

NEZ [sic] an

of the ‘Most 

. . .[and] Def

t of Plaintiff

 Therefore, 

d new defen

, 205-206. (8

’s request fo

aims against

ly. Oppositi

7

[or] dilatory

articular, he p

int not the fo

ave been con

ar, Plaintiff c

onference, w

e of Plaintif

s went to me

n-expert dis

pril 28, 2014

discovery bu

sion and p

The consequ

ry deadline, 

ntiff initiate

layed in resp

d in inability

¶¶15-16.) 

not futile be

ing date of th

ave known th

nd RACHAE

Wanted’ lis

fendants kne

f.” Id. Furth

the requirem

ndants. Id. (c

8th Cir. 1984

or leave to am

t Jimenez an

ion at 1. Wi

y motive” on

points out th

ourth or fifth

nstant obstac

contends, De

which was de

ff’s control, 

ediation. (L

scovery dea

4. (Lacy Dec

ut Defendan

providing in

uence of the

until Nove

ed another 

ponding. (L

y of Plaintif

ecause the cl

he original c

hat the previo

EL [sic] beca

st of persons

ew, or shoul

her, he argue

ments for rel

citing Rule 1

4)). 

mend should

nd Rachal do

ith respect to

n Plaintiff’s p

hat “this wou

h.” Id. Furth

cles related t

efendants ha

elayed by 

the court 

Lacy Decl. 

adline for 

cl. at ¶7.) 

nts caused 

nadequate 

ese delays 

ember 14, 

round of 

Lacy Decl. 

ff to take 

laims agains

complaint. I

ous complai

ause Defenda

 given to De

d have know

es, Jimenez a

ation back u

15(c); March

d be denied o

o not relate b

o the first arg

part in 

uld be 

her, he 

to Plaintiff’s

ave hindered

st the new 

Id. at 7. 

ints 

ants knew 

efendants 

wn, about 

and Rachal 

under Rule 

hant v. City 

on the basis 

back to the 

gument, 

s

d

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 17 of 34
18 

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 

Defendants reject Plaintiff’s assertion that they hindered discovery or that Plaintiff could not have 

discovered the involvement of Officer Jimenez and Captain Rachal in the events at issue in this 

case. Id. at 2. Regarding Officer Jimenez, Defendants state: 

Officer Jimenez was disclosed to plaintiff in defendants’ Rule 26 

initial disclosures more than 18 months prior to the filing of 

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Defendants’ counsel produced 

video footage containing interviews of witnesses and the plaintiff – 

all conducted by Officer Jimenez – more than 12 months prior to the 

instant motion. Although plaintiff did not notice Officer Jimenez’s 

deposition until July 2014 – more than one year after he was first 

disclosed to plaintiff – he has been well aware of Officer Jimenez’s 

relevance to the lawsuit and appears to have made a conscious 

decision not to previously name Officer Jimenez in the complaint. 

Id.; see also Declaration of James F. Hodgkins in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“Hodgkins Opposition Decl.”) ¶ 5 (stating 

that on September 16, 2013, counsel for Defendants gave Mr. Lacy a video of the interviews 

conducted by Officer Jimenez of the Nguyens, a copy of the arrest warrant that named Officer 

Jimenez as the officer who signed the supporting affidavit,6 and a copy of the photo line-up waiver 

statement naming Officer Jimenez as the officer who conducted the photo line-up). 

Captain Rachal’s involvement also could have been discovered much earlier in the case, 

Defendants assert: 

[P]laintiff seeks to belatedly name Rachal as a defendant in the case, 

implying from exhibits to the instant motion that he only discovered 

Rachal’s name after deposing Officer Johnna Watson on November 

19, 2014. While it may be true that the deposition occurred shortly 

before plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, plaintiff has had the 

ability to “discover” Rachal’s name and depose him for more than a 

year. Plaintiff conveniently fails to mention that Officer Watson’s 

name was disclosed in defendants’ Rule 26 disclosures in June 2013. 

Instead of diligently litigating this case in the manner anticipated by 

the Court and the federal rules, plaintiff failed to serve a single 

deposition notice/subpoena – including one for Officer Jimenez – 

until July 2014, nearly one year after the Court opened discovery. 

Even though plaintiff had much of the information necessary to 

depose or seek discovery pertaining to Officer Jimenez and Rachal 

more than one year ago, he instead, misrepresents to the Court that 

defendants have thwarted his efforts. 

 

6

 At oral argument, Defendants conceded that they did not produce the affidavit itself at that time. 

Plaintiff’s counsel represented at oral argument that he did not receive the affidavit that Officer 

Jimenez submitted to the magistrate until June 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 18 of 34
19 

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 

Id. (emphasis added). Under these circumstances, Defendants contend, Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice to permit Plaintiff to amend the complaint to add two 

new defendants. Id. 

 Defendants also reject Plaintiff’s assertion that the claims against Jimenez and Rachal 

relate back to the original complaint and therefore are not time-barred. Id. at 4-7. As a 

preliminary matter, the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against these defendants are governed by 

either a one or two-year statute of limitations, Defendants contend. Id. at 4-5 (citing Cal. Civ. 

Code §§ 335.1, 340; Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir. 1987)). Because 

the claims accrued in February 2012, Defendants argue, they are untimely unless they relate back 

to the original complaint. Id. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)). Further, under Rule 

15(c)(1)(C),7 the claims do not relate back, Defendants argue. Id. First, they assert, neither 

Jimenez nor Rachal received any notice of this action within 120 days, as required under Rule 

4(m), which is incorporated into Rule 15(c)(1)(C). Id. In particular, Defendants’ counsel states 

that he does not recall having any conversations with Officer Jimenez about this lawsuit prior to 

July 5, 2013 (when the 120 days expired) and that as far as he knows, Captain Rachal (now 

retired) has no awareness of this lawsuit even now. Id. at 6 (citing Hodgkins Decl., ¶¶ 11-13, 22-

25). Second, there is no evidence that either Jimenez or Rachal would or should have known that 

Plaintiff’s complaint would have been brought against them “but for a mistake in identity,” 

Defendants argue. Id. at 6. 

 

7

 Rule 15(c)(1)(C) provides that an amendment will relate back if the following requirements are 

met: 

(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party 

against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and 

if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons 

and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: 

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in 

defending on the merits; and 

(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been 

brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's 

identity. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C). 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 19 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

III

sub

par

jus

libe

ma

dila

pre

am

Son

182

den

(cit

Fo

(cit

“[f

Ca

this

and

dep

3.

Plaintif

I. MOTIO

A. Le

Pursuan

bsequently, i

rty. See Fed

stice so requi

erality.” Ow

ay decline to 

atory motive

eviously allo

mendment, [o

noma County

2 (1962)). T

The Fo

nial of leave 

tations omitt

men factors.

ting Eminen

f]utility of am

alderon, 59 F

B. D

1.

The par

s case, with 

d Defendant

positions we

. Reply 

ff did not file

ON FOR LE

egal Standar

nt to Rule 15

it may only a

d.R.Civ.P. 15

ires.” Fed.R

wens v. Kaise

grant leave 

e on the part

owed, undue 

or] futility of

ty, 708 F.3d 

These factors

men factors 

to amend.” 

ted). Prejud

. Sonoma Co

ce Capital, L

mendment ca

F.3d 815, 845

Discussion 

. Undue De

rties present 

Plaintiff’s co

s’ counsel as

ere the result

e a Reply in 

EAVE TO A

rd under Ru

5(a), a party 

amend after 

5(a). Rule 15

R.Civ.P. 15(a

er Found. He

to amend on

of the mova

prejudice to

f amendment

1109, 1117 

s are referred

“are not of e

DCD Progr

dice, on the o

ounty Ass’n 

LLC v. Aspe

an, by itself,

5 (9th Cir. 1

elay

widely dive

ounsel accus

sserting that

t of Plaintiff’

20

response to 

AMEND 

ule 15(a) 

may amend 

obtaining le

5 advises the

a)(2). “[T]hi

ealth Plan, I

nly if there is

ant, repeated

o the opposin

t, etc.’” Sono

(9th Cir. 20

d to as the “F

equal weight

rams, Ltd. v. 

other hand, is

of Retired E

eon, Inc., 316

 justify the d

995). 

ergent accoun

sing Defend

delays in th

’s counsel’s 

0

Defendants

a pleading o

eave of the co

e court that “

is policy is t

Inc., 244 F.3

s strong evid

d failure to cu

ng party by v

oma County 

013) (quoting

Fomen facto

t in that dela

Leighton, 8

s the weight

Employees v.

6 F.3d 1048,

denial of a m

unts of the di

dants’ counse

he production

lack of dilig

’ opposition 

once as a ma

ourt, or by c

“leave shall 

to be applied

d 708, 712 (

dence of ‘un

ure deficien

virtue of allo

y Ass’n of Re

g Foman v. D

ors.” Id. 

ay, by itself, 

33 F.2d 183

tiest and mos

. Sonoma Co

, 1052 (9th C

motion for le

scovery effo

el of hinderin

n of docume

gence. The C

brief. 

atter of cours

consent of th

be freely giv

d with extrem

(9th Cir.200

ndue delay, b

cies by amen

owance of th

etired Employ

Davis, 371 U

is insufficie

3, 186 (9th C

st important 

ounty, 708 F

Cir. 2003)). 

ave to amen

orts that have

ng his discov

ents and as to

Court has rev

se; 

he adverse 

ven when 

me 

1). “Courts 

bad faith or 

ndments 

he 

oyees v. 

U.S. 178, 

ent to justify

Cir. 1987) 

of the 

F.3d at 1117

 Further, 

nd.” Bonin v

e occurred in

very efforts 

o

viewed the 

v. 

n

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 20 of 34
21 

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 

declarations of counsel offered in support of the Motion for Leave to Amend as well as the record 

in this case and finds that Plaintiff’s counsel has shown a lack of diligence in pursuing discovery. 

Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly delayed taking depositions in this case, including the 

depositions of the Defendants named in the original complaint (who could have – and eventually 

did – provide information showing that Captain Rachal was the head of the department 

responsible for the “Most Wanted” list upon which Plaintiff bases many of his claims) and the 

deposition of Officer Jimenez. Plaintiff’s counsel was aware of Officer Jimenez’s involvement in 

the underlying events of this case by September 2013, when the City of Oakland provided a video 

CD of the interviews with the Nguyen siblings, as well as a copy of the arrest warrant showing 

that Officer Jimenez had signed the supporting affidavit. See Hodgkins Opposition Declaration ¶ 

5. The fact that he did not receive the actual affidavit until June 2014 is of no moment because he 

did not act diligently to obtain that document once he became aware of it. Further, it appears that 

Plaintiff’s counsel was aware of the need to depose Officer Jimenez by September 2013. In 

particular, according to Mr. Hodgkins, Mr. Lacy represented to the Court at the September 20, 

2013 Case Management Conference that he wanted to depose Officer Jimenez prior to engaging 

in further mediation efforts. Id. ¶ 6.8 

Plaintiff’s counsel also had the opportunity to take these depositions as of September 20, 

2013, when the Court expressly permitted each side to conduct up to “three (3) depositions each 

before the next mediation.” Docket No. 25. The Court did not impose any limitation as to who

the parties could depose. Plaintiff’s counsel did not, however, conduct any depositions prior to 

the date in December 2013 when the parties were scheduled for their second mediation. Hodgkins 

Opposition Decl. ¶ 7. Consequently, the mediator rescheduled the mediation to give Plaintiff’s 

counsel additional time to conduct discovery. See Hodgkins Opposition Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. Still, he did 

 

8

 At oral argument, Mr. Lacy suggested that he did not specifically state that he needed to depose 

Officer Jimenez at that time, contrary to Mr. Hodgkins’ representation in his declaration. Had 

Plaintiff filed a reply brief, counsel could have included a sworn declaration stating as much. 

Even assuming Mr. Lacy did not state at the Case Management Conference that he wished to 

depose Officer Jimenez, however, the Court would reach the same conclusion, that is, that counsel 

unduly delayed taking key depositions, because, as discussed above, Mr. Lacy was on notice by 

September 2013 that Officer Jimenez played a key role in Plaintiff’s arrest and supplied the 

affidavit upon which the arrest warrant was based. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 21 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

not

sec

201

and

for

agr

con

No

not

eve

day

Op

mo

mo

com

am

to a

 

9 A

to u

eve

circ

the

10 P

De

Pla

Mo

De

Pla

con

dep

dep

t notice any 

cond mediati

It was n

14, that Plain

d confer with

r dates on wh

reed to exten

nducted a nu

ovember 13, 

t inform the 

en though th

y after Plain

pposition Dec

otion seeking

otion had alre

mbination w

mend should b

2.

As note

amend shoul

 

At oral argum

use his three

ents but was 

cumstances,

e named Def

Plaintiff did 

efendant’s co

aintiff’s coun

otion for Sum

ecember 17, 2

aintiff’s coun

ntinue the ne

position at su

prived of the

depositions 

ion finally oc

not until July

ntiff’s couns

h opposing c

hich Defenda

nd discovery

umber of dep

2014) and O

Court or opp

he parties app

tiff’s counse

cl. ¶ 25. It w

g leave to am

eady been fu

with the resul

be denied. 

. Undue Pr

ed above, the

ld be granted

 

ment, Mr. La

e depositions

unable to fi

 use the thre

fendants. 

not succeed

ounsel, he pr

nsel. Declar

mmary Judgm

2014, which

nsel rejected

ext day, if ne

uch a late ho

e opportunity

and no depo

ccurred, on A

y 17, 2014, j

sel finally no

counsel, as r

ants’ counse

y to permit th

positions in N

Officer Wats

posing coun

peared at a C

el had depos

was not until

mend his com

ully briefed. 

ting prejudic

 

rejudice 

e question of

d. “‘Undue p

 

acy stated tha

s to depose th

nd them; co

ee permitted 

in arranging

roposed mult

ration of Jam

ment (“Hodg

h Plaintiff’s c

d the proposa

ecessary, tell

our. Id. The

y to depose C

22

osition had b

April 2, 201

ust before th

oticed depos

equired unde

el was unava

he deposition

November 2

on (on Nove

sel that he in

Case Manage

ed Officer Ji

l almost two

mplaint. At t

 Counsel’s d

ce (discussed

f prejudice is

prejudice’ m

at he did not

hree individ

ounsel was u

depositions 

g a depositio

tiple dates fo

mes F. Hodgk

gkins Reply 

counsel had 

al that the de

ling Defenda

erefore, to th

Chief Jordan

2

been taken by

4.9 

he scheduled

itions in the 

er Civ. L.R. 

ailable. Id., 

ns to occur a

2014, includi

ember 19, 20

ntended to se

ement Confe

imenez. See

o months had

that point, D

delay is inex

d below) sup

s an importa

means substan

t take any de

duals who we

unable to exp

to depose O

on for Chief 

or the deposi

kins in Supp

y Decl.”), ¶ 1

said would w

eposition beg

ants’ counse

he extent Pla

n, he has onl

y Plaintiff’s 

d fact discov

case, but be

30-1, the de

¶ 13. Defen

and Plaintiff

ing that of O

014).10 Even

eek leave to 

erence on No

e Docket No

d passed that

Defendants’ s

xcusable and

pports the co

ant factor in 

ntial prejudi

epositions be

ere at the sce

plain why he

Officer Jimen

Howard Jor

ition, all of w

port of Reply

15. One of th

work for him

gin that day 

el that he cou

aintiff now as

ly himself to

counsel whe

very cut-off o

ecause he fai

epositions w

ndants subse

f’s counsel fi

Officer Jimen

n then, howe

amend his c

ovember 14,

o. 45; Hodgk

t he finally fi

summary jud

d, when cons

onclusion tha

deciding wh

ce or substan

ecause he ha

ene of the un

e did not, un

nez or at leas

rdan. Accord

which were 

y to Oppositi

he proposed

m. Id. How

starting at 1 

uld not start 

sserts that he

o blame. 

en the 

of August 1,

iled to meet 

were noticed 

equently 

inally 

nez (on 

ever, he did 

complaint, 

, 2014 – a 

kins 

filed a 

dgment 

sidered in 

at leave to 

hether leave 

ntial 

d intended 

nderlying 

der these 

st some of 

ding to 

rejected by 

ion to 

d dates was 

wever, 

pm and 

the 

e was 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 22 of 34
23 

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 

negative effect; the Ninth Circuit has found such substantial prejudice where the claims sought to 

be added ‘would have greatly altered the nature of the litigation and would have required 

defendants to have undertaken, at a late hour, an entirely new course of defense.’” SAES Getters 

S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal., 2002) (quoting Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). “A need to reopen discovery and 

therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed 

motion to amend the complaint.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc. 

194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Solomon v. North Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 

1132, 1139 (9th Cir.1998)). On the other hand, prejudice is mitigated where the case is still in the 

discovery stage, no trial date is pending and no pretrial conference has occurred. See DCD

Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d at 187-188. 

The Court concludes that under the circumstances here the prejudice to Defendants is 

undue. Discovery in this case closed several months ago and would have closed in August of last 

year had Plaintiff been diligent in pursuing discovery. Although a trial date has not yet been set, 

Defendants have already filed their summary judgment motion which will, if granted, dispose of 

virtually the entire case. If the Court were to permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint, however, 

Defendants likely would be required to withdraw their summary judgment motion and file an 

entirely new summary judgment motion addressing all of Plaintiff’s claims. It should be noted 

that the claims Plaintiff seeks to add are intertwined with those that were asserted in the original 

complaint; thus, the arguments that have been made in the pending motion would likely need to be 

revised to take into account any new evidence and arguments that will be made as to Officer 

Jimenez and Captain Rachal.11 In addition, Plaintiff’s addition of two new parties will inevitably 

lead to a new round of discovery, now months after discovery has closed. Certainly the new 

parties would be entitled to such discovery – and the existing parties would be entitled to take new 

 

11 Similarly, although Plaintiff named Chief Jordan as a defendant in the original complaint, he did 

not identify Chief Jordan as a defendant on his Third Cause of Action, for defamation. Therefore, 

Defendants would be required to revise their request for summary judgment to address that claim 

if the Court were to permit Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint, which names as 

Defendants Chief Jordan, Captain Rachal, Defendants Watson and Perkins, and Does 1-10. See

Docket No. 57-5. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 23 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

dis

per

we

the

Am

Lea

the

fili

tha

Fed

is e

com

to b

ide

not

23-

see

scovery regar

Under t

rmitting ame

eight placed o

ese two Fom

mend. 

3.

The Co

ave to Amen

e claims he s

ing date unde

at an amendm

d. R. Civ. P.

extended by 

mplaint that 

bring the act

entity.” In ad

tice of the ac

-24. Accordi

eks to assert 

rding the cla

these circum

endment is u

on this facto

en factors, o

. Futility

ourt further fi

nd, that amen

eeks to add t

er Rule 15(c

ment will rel

(C) the ame

against who

if, within th

and complai

(i) rec

prejudiced i

(ii) kne

brought aga

identity. 

 15(c)(1)(C)

the Court on

would have 

tion against t

ddition, the o

ction within 

ingly, amend

against Offi

aims against 

mstances, the

undue, even t

or, and in ligh

on their own,

finds, as a sep

ndment is fu

to the compl

c) of the Fed

late back if th

endment ch

om a claim is

he period pro

int, the party

eived such 

in defending

ew or should

ainst it, but 

). The “perio

n a showing 

indicated to

those defend

only evidenc

the period a

dment of the

icer Jimenez

24

the new par

 Court concl

though a tria

ht of the und

, are sufficie

parate and in

utile. Plainti

laint will be 

eral Rules o

he following

hanges the p

s asserted, if

ovided by Ru

y to be broug

notice of 

g on the meri

d have known

for a mistak

od provided 

of good cau

o Officer Jim

dants but for

ce in the reco

allowed unde

e complaint w

z and Captain

4

rties. 

ludes that th

al date has no

due delay dis

ent to warran

ndependent b

iff has not ch

timely only

f Civil Proce

g requiremen

party or the 

f Rule 15(c)(

ule 4(m) for 

ght in by am

the action 

its; and 

n that the ac

ke concerni

by Rule 4(m

use. Here, th

menez and Ca

r a “mistake 

ord shows th

er Rule 4(m)

would be fut

n Rachal are

he prejudice t

ot yet been s

scussed abov

nt denial of t

basis for den

hallenged De

y if they relat

edure. Rule

nts are met: 

naming of 

(1)(B) is sat

serving the 

mendment: 

that it wil

ction would h

ing the prop

m)” is 120 da

here is nothin

aptain Racha

concerning 

hat neither in

). See Hodgk

tile because 

e untimely. 

that would r

set. Given th

ve, the Cour

the Motion f

nial of the M

efendants’ as

te back to th

 15(c)(1)(C)

the party 

isfied and 

summons 

ll not be 

have been 

per party's 

ays unless th

ng in the ori

al that Plaint

the proper p

ndividual rec

kins Opposi

the claims P

result from 

he heavy 

rt finds that 

for Leave to 

Motion for 

ssertion that

he original 

) provides 

hat deadline 

ginal 

tiff intended

party’s 

ceived any 

tion Decl. ¶¶

Plaintiff 

t

d

¶

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 24 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

Pla

Ac

def

circ

of a

ide

circ

this

and

com

of A

the

IV

no 

law

the

mo

per

ma

“sp

dra

378

 

pre

4.

Having

aintiff’s Mot

ction, for def

fendants. Th

cumstances 

a complaint”

entify the unk

cumstances 

s Third Caus

d, as discuss

mplaint to ad

Action, that 

e Federal Ru

. MOTIO

A. L

Summa

genuine disp

w.” Fed. R. C

e absence of 

oving party’s

rsuasion at tr

ade this show

pecific facts 

aws all reaso

8 (2007). 

 “If a no

esent facts es

. Conclusi

g applied the 

tion for Leav

famation. In

he Ninth Cir

under which

” and therefo

known defen

do not exist 

se of Action 

ed above, th

dd new parti

claim is dism

les of Civil P

ON FOR SU

egal Standa

ary judgment

pute as to an

Civ. P. 56(a)

a genuine is

s claim, or to

rial. Celotex

wing, the bur

showing the

onable factua

onmovant sh

ssential to ju

ion 

Fomen facto

ve to Amend

n the operativ

rcuit has note

h “the identit

ore, “the pla

ndants.” Gil

here, howev

(Jordan, Wa

he Fomen fac

ies. Because

missed with 

Procedure. 

UMMARY 

ard on Summ

t on a claim 

ny material f

). In order to

ssue of mater

o a defense o

x Corp. v. Ca

rden then shi

ere is a genui

al inferences

hows by affi

ustify its opp

25

ors and for t

d. The Court

ve complaint

ed although 

ty of alleged

intiff should

llespie v. Civ

ver, where th

atson and Pe

ctors support

e only Doe d

prejudice fo

JUDGMEN

mary Judgm

or defense i

fact and the m

o prevail, a p

rial fact with

on which the

atrett, 477 U

ifts to the pa

ine issue for

s in favor of 

davit or decl

position, the 

5

the reasons d

t further DIS

t, this claim 

Doe defenda

d defendants 

d be given an

viletti, 629 F

he defendant

erkins) were 

rt denial of P

defendants ar

or failure to 

NT 

ment 

is appropriat

movant is en

party movin

h respect to a

e non-movin

U.S. 317, 323

arty opposing

r trial.” Id. 

the non-mov

laration that

court may .

discussed ab

SMISSES Pl

is asserted o

ants are disf

will not be k

n opportunity

F.2d 637, 642

ts Plaintiff n

 known at th

Plaintiff’s req

re named on

state a claim

te “if the mo

ntitled to jud

ng for summa

an essential 

ng party will 

3 (1986). On

g summary j

On summary

vant. Scott 

t, for specifie

 . . defer con

ove, the Cou

laintiff’s Thi

only against 

favored, ther

known prior

y through di

2 (9th Cir. 1

now seeks to 

he outset of t

quest to ame

n Plaintiff’s T

m under Rule

ovant shows 

dgment as a m

ary judgmen

element of t

bear the bur

nce the mov

judgment to 

y judgment, 

v. Harris, 55

ed reasons, i

nsidering the

urt DENIES 

ird Cause of

Doe 

re are 

r to the filing

iscovery to 

980). Those

name on 

the action 

end his 

Third Cause 

e 12(b)(6) of

that there is 

matter of 

nt must show

the nonrden of 

vant has 

designate 

the court 

50 U.S. 372

it cannot 

e motion” 

f

g

e

f

w

,

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 25 of 34
26 

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 

and may also “allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P 

56(d); see also Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 41 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(“A party requesting a continuance pursuant to [Rule 56(d)] must identify by affidavit the specific 

facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary 

judgment”). The court may deny a request pursuant to Rule 56(d) where a party has failed 

diligently to pursue discovery prior to summary judgment. Mackey v. Pioneer Nat. Bank, 867 

F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A movant cannot complain if it fails diligently to pursue discovery 

before summary judgment”). 

B. Request for Additional Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(d) 

As discussed above, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to pursue discovery diligently, waiting until 

the last days of the fact discovery period to conduct key depositions, even with an impending 

deadline for dispositive motions. With respect to Chief Jordan, who has not yet been deposed, it 

appears that Plaintiff’s counsel bears a significant part of the responsibility for the fact that the 

parties have been unable to schedule that deposition. Further, Plaintiff has not offered an affidavit 

identifying with specificity the facts he seeks to discover through additional discovery under Rule 

56(d). Nor has he identified any specific facts in his brief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request that the 

Court defer ruling on Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion to permit additional discovery is 

DENIED. 

C. First Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983, Against Defendants Perkins and 

Watson) 

 Section 1983 provides “a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (citation omitted)). “Section 1983 does not 

create any substantive rights; rather it is the vehicle whereby plaintiffs can challenge actions by 

governmental officials.” Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff 

bringing a claim under § 1983 must show that “(1) the action occurred ‘under color of state law’ 

and (2) the action resulted in the deprivation of a constitutional right or federal statutory right.” 

Id. (citation omitted). “In order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable under 

section 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation: 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 26 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

the

Ser

Fou

fin

alle

Ch

tha

of a

tha

fun

sup

alle

Los

inte

the

act

(9t

 

wit

con

Pla

ulti

De

sug

con

ere is no resp

rvs., 436 U.S

Plaintif

urth Amendm

ds that Plain

1.

“An off

eged violatio

uman v. Wri

at “[i]ntegral

a constitutio

at allegedly c

ndamentally 

pport at the s

eged violatio

s Angeles, 82

egral particip

eir physical p

ts leading to 

h Cir.2007))

Plaintif

thout probab

nstitutional v

aintiff as one

imately turn

efendants pla

ggesting that

nstitutional v

pondeat supe

S. 658 (1978

ff asserts his 

ments to the

ntiff’s claim 

. Fourth A

ficer’s liabili

on.” Blanke

ight, 76 F.3d

 participatio

onal violation

caused the vi

involved in 

scene of the 

on or have re

20 F.Supp.2

pants even i

participation

the violation

). 

ff contends h

ble cause and

violation bec

e of Oakland

ned himself in

ayed a funda

t a defendant

violation und

erior liability

8)). 

First Cause 

e United Stat

fails on sum

Amendment 

ity under sec

nhorn v. City

d 292, 294–9

on does not r

n . . . [b]ut it

iolation.” Id

the alleged v

alleged viol

eason to kno

2d 1081, 108

f they have n

n in the alleg

n. “ Id. (citi

his Fourth Am

d that Defen

cause they w

d’s “Most W

n and then w

amental role 

t can be foun

der circumst

27

y under secti

of Action on

tes Constitut

mmary judgm

ction 1983 is

ty of Orange

95 (9th Cir. 1

equire that e

t does requir

d. (citations a

violation wh

ation and wh

ow of such a 

9-1090 (C.D

no knowledg

ed violation 

ng Blankenh

mendment r

dants Watso

were involved

anted.” Pla

was arrested 

in his arrest.

nd to have p

tances such a

7

ion 1983.” I

n the basis o

tion. For the

ment. 

s predicated 

e, 485 F.3d 4

1996)). In B

each officer’

re some fund

and quotatio

hen they pro

hen they are

plan, but do

D.Cal., 2011)

ge of a plan 

was part of

horn v. City 

rights were v

on and Perkin

d in drafting

aintiff’s theo

(allegedly w

. However, 

played a fund

as these. No

Id. (citing M

of alleged vi

e reasons sta

on his ‘integ

463, 481 n. 1

Blankenhorn

s actions the

damental inv

ons omitted)

vide some a

e aware of th

o not object.”

). “Addition

to commit th

f a closely re

of Orange, 4

violated whe

ns were inte

g the press re

ory seems to 

without prob

he has point

damental rol

or does the C

Monell v. Dep

olations of th

ated below, t

gral particip

2 (9th Cir. 2

, the court e

emselves rise

volvement in

. Thus, “[o]

affirmative p

he plan to com

” Monteilh v

nally, officer

he alleged vi

lated series o

485 F.3d 463

n he was arr

gral particip

elease that id

be that beca

able cause) t

ted to no aut

le in an alleg

Court find an

p't of Soc. 

he First and 

the Court 

ation’ in the

2007) (citing

xplained 

e to the leve

n the conduct

fficers are 

hysical 

mmit the 

v. County of

rs may be 

iolation if 

of physical 

3, 481 n. 12 

rested 

pants in the 

dentified 

ause he 

these 

thority 

ged 

ny such 

e

g 

l 

t

f

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 27 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

aut

cha

con

atte

Th

Fou

Ha

fail

off

spe

any

alth

fail

how

alle

ent

 

its 

exe

edi

as 

dem

 

12 

is n

law

thority. Eve

ain of events

nduct of Def

enuated for a

erefore, the 

urth Amendm

aving reached

ls because th

2.

“[T]he 

ficials from s

eaking out.” 

y evidence (o

hough Plaint

ls to specify 

w it might al

eged that he 

titled to sum

D. Se

Jo

Under M

employees o

ecution of a 

icts or acts m

an entity is r

monstrate th

 

Plaintiff’s c

no evidence 

w. 

en assuming

s that ultimat

fendants Wa

any reasonab

Court conclu

ment by Def

d this conclu

here was no 

. First Ame

law is settle

subjecting an

 Hartman v.

or even alleg

tiff contends

what eviden

llow him to p

engaged in 

mmary judgm

econd Caus

ordan)12

Monell, a mu

on a theory o

government

may fairly be

responsible u

hat a municip

 

omplaint ind

of any indiv

 that the acts

tely led to a 

atson and Per

ble jury to co

udes that Pla

fendants Wa

usion, the Co

Fourth Ame

endment Vi

d that as a g

n individual 

. Moore, 547

ged) that he 

s he should b

nce he expec

prevail on a 

any constitu

ment on this c

se of Action 

unicipality c

of respondea

t’s policy or 

e said to repr

under § 1983

pal employee

 

dicates that h

vidual involv

28

s of Watson 

Fourth Ame

rkins and the

onclude that

aintiff’s § 19

atson and Per

ourt declines

endment viol

iolation

eneral matte

to retaliator

7 U.S. 250, 2

engaged in a

be permitted

cts to obtain 

claim of Fir

utionally prot

claim. 

(42 U.S.C. 

cannot be hel

at superior. M

custom, whe

resent officia

3.” Id. at 69

e committed

he is suing C

vement on C

8

and Perkins

endment vio

e alleged con

t they played

983 claim ba

rkins fails to

s to reach De

lation. 

er the First A

ry actions, in

256 (2006). 

any constitu

d to conduct 

in support o

rst Amendm

tected speec

§ 1983 , Aga

ld liable for 

Monell, 436

ether made b

al policy, inf

94. One way

d the alleged 

Chief Jordan 

hief Jordan’

s played a pa

lation, the co

nstitutional v

d a fundamen

ased on alleg

o survive sum

efendants’ ar

Amendment p

ncluding crim

 Plaintiff ha

utionally prot

further disco

of this claim

ment retaliatio

ch. Therefor

ainst City o

constitution

6 U.S. at 691

by its lawma

flicts the inju

y to satisfy th

constitution

in his indivi

’s part, this c

art in setting 

onnection be

violation is s

ntal role in th

ged violation

mmary judgm

rguments tha

prohibits go

minal prosec

s not, howev

tected speech

overy on the

. Nor has he

on where he 

re, Defendan

of Oakland, 

nal injuries in

. “Instead, i

akers or by th

ury that the g

his requirem

nal violation 

idual capaci

claim fails as

in motion a

etween the 

simply too 

he violation

n of the 

ment. 

at this claim

vernment 

cutions, for 

ver, offered 

h. Further, 

e claim, he 

e explained 

has not 

nts are 

Chief 

nflicted by 

it is when 

hose whose 

government 

ment is to 

“pursuant to

ty. As there

s a matter of

. 

m

o

e

f

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 28 of 34
29 

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 

a formal governmental policy or longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard 

operating procedure of the local governmental entity.” Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 

(9th Cir. 1992). Thus, a municipality may be liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983 

where the alleged constitutional violation was the result of a policy of providing inadequate 

training of employees and “where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the 

rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.” See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 

378, 388 (1989). In City of Canton, however, the Supreme Court made clear that “the focus must 

be on adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks the particular officers must 

perform.” Id. at 390-91. It went on to explain, “[t]hat a particular officer may be unsatisfactorily 

trained will not alone suffice to fasten liability on the city, for the officer’s shortcomings may have 

resulted from factors other than a faulty training program.” Id. 

Here, the only evidence offered by Plaintiff in support of his Monell claim relates to the 

training received by Officer Jimenez. Even assuming this evidence is sufficient to show that 

Officer Jimenez received inadequate training, it is inadequate, as a matter of law, to demonstrate a 

policy of inadequate training sufficient to establish liability on the part of the City of Oakland or 

Chief Jordan (to the extent Plaintiffs intended to sue Chief Jordan in his official capacity) under 

Monell. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Cause of 

Action. 

E. Claim Four (False Arrest and Imprisonment, Against Defendants Watson and 

Perkins) 

 Where a claim of false imprisonment is based on an alleged false arrest, the torts of false 

arrest and false imprisonment are the same because “false arrest is but one way of committing a 

false imprisonment.” Collins v. City and County of San Francisco, 50 Cal.App.3d 671, 673 

(1975). “If Plaintiff’s arrest or confinement was without probable cause – a situation that might 

arise if probable cause was lacking for the warrant – California law does not provide immunity 

from liability for false arrest for the arresting officer.” Riley v. Modesto Irr. Dist., Case No. C-10-

2281 AWI, 2011 WL 3101796, at *6 (E.D. Cal., July 25, 2011) (citing Gillan v. City of San 

Marino, 147 Cal.App.4th 1050 -1051 (2007)). In order to be liable for false arrest, however, the 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 29 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

def

Or

the

def

He

ins

tha

no 

non

Per

Spe

Co

abr

inte

 

13 T

sho

sec

ma

arr

the

ent

rea

Pla

are

14P

bas

ide

dis

inv

fendant “mu

eb, 36 Cal.2

e arrest was m

fendant may

ere, however

stigated the a

at eventually

authority th

ne.13 Theref

F. C

A

Pl

Defend

rkins based o

eech Clause 

de section 8

1.

“The Fr

ridging the fr

entional infl

 

The Court fu

ow that they 

ction 43.55(a

akes an arres

est acts with

e warrant.” E

titled to imm

ason to believ

aintiff was no

e entitled to i

Plaintiff does

sed. To the 

entifying him

scussed abov

volvement in

ust have taken

d 854, 859 (

made “by an

y also be liab

, there is no 

arrest. As di

y led to Plain

at such cond

fore, this cla

Claim Five a

Against Defe

laintiff as O

dants challen

on the comm

of the First 

21.6. 

. First Ame

ree Speech C

freedom of sp

iction of em

 

urther notes t

could be he

a), which pro

st pursuant to

hout malice a

Even assumi

munity under

ve that the s

ot the indivi

immunity un

s not identify

extent they m

m as one of O

ve as to the fa

n Plaintiff’s a

n some activ

(1951). This

n officer at ‘t

ble for false a

evidence tha

iscussed abo

ntiff’s self-su

duct is suffic

im fails as a

and Six (Inte

endants Wat

Oakland’s “M

nge on three g

munications i

Amendment

endment 

Clause of the

peech’ – can

motional distr

 

that even if t

ld liable for 

ovides that “ o a warrant o

and in reason

ing that there

r this provisi

earch warran

dual referred

nder this pro

y in the comp

may be base

Oakland’s “M

false arrest cl

arrest. 

30

ve part in bri

s rule does n

the instance 

arrest. Colli

at the named

ve, at most, 

urrender and 

cient to supp

a matter of la

entional Inf

tson and Pe

Most Wante

grounds Plai

identifying h

t; 2) Cal. C

e First Amen

n serve as a d

ress.” Snyde

the involvem

false arrest,

“no cause of 

of arrest regu

nable belief 

e is a fact qu

on, there is n

nt obtained b

d to in the se

vision as a m

plaint the pa

d on Plaintif

Most Wanted

laim, namely

0

inging about

not limit liab

and instigati

ins v. Owens

d Defendant

they played

arrest by Of

port a false ar

aw. 

fliction of Em

erkins Based

ed”)14

intiff’s claim

him as Oakla

Civ. Code sec

ndment – ‘C

defense in st

er v. Phelps, 

ment of Wats

 the claim w

action shall 

ular on its fa

that the pers

uestion as to 

no evidence 

by Officer Ji

earch warran

matter of law

articular con

ff’s arrest ra

d”, these cla

y, that neithe

t the unlawfu

ility to the a

ion’ or ‘dire

s, 77 Cal.App

s, Watson an

d a part in ini

fficer Jimen

rrest claim, a

motional Di

d on Comm

ms against D

and’s “Most

ction 47(d)(

Congress shal

tate tort suits

131 S. Ct. 1

son and Perk

would fail un

arise agains

ace if the pea

son arrested 

whether Of

that Watson

imenez was 

nt. Therefor

w on Plaintif

duct upon w

ather than the

aims also fail

er of the nam

ul arrest.” H

arresting offi

ection’ of def

p.2d 713, 71

nd Perkins, d

itiating a cha

ez. Plaintiff

and the Cour

istress and N

munications I

Defendants W

t Wanted”: 1

1); and 3) Ca

ll make no la

s, including 

1207, 1215 (

kins were su

nder Cal. Civ

st any peace 

ace officer in

is the one re

fficer Jimene

n or Perkins 

not valid or 

re, Watson an

ff’s false arre

which these c

e press relea

l for the reas

med defenda

Hughes v. 

icer; where 

fendant, the 

19 (1947). 

directed or 

ain of events

f has offered

rt has found

Negligence,

Identifying

Watson and 

1) the Free 

al. Gov’t 

aw . . . 

suits for

(2011) 

ufficient to 

v. Code 

officer who

n making the

eferred to in 

ez would be 

had any 

that 

nd Perkins 

est claim. 

claims are 

ase 

sons 

ants had any 

s

d

e

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 30 of 34
31 

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 

(citation omitted). Thus, in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, the Court held that “where a 

newspaper publishes speech of public concern, a private-figure plaintiff cannot recover damages 

without also showing that the statements at issue are false.” 475 U.S. 767, 768-769 (1986). This 

holding shifts the burden of proving falsity to the plaintiff, deviating from the common law rule 

that the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is a defense that must be proved by the 

defendant. See id. at 776. California courts have found that the holding of Hepps applies in cases 

involving non-media defendants as well as media defendants. See Nizam-Aldine v. City of 

Oakland, 47 Cal. App. 4th 364, 373-375 (1996). Consequently, Defendants are entitled to 

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action if: 1) the communications, as a 

matter of law, relate to matters of public concern; and 2) no jury could reasonably conclude based 

on the evidence in the record, that the communications are false. 

 “Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to 

any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,. . . or when it is a subject of 

legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the 

public.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. at 1216 (internal quotations and citations omitted). It is 

undisputed that the statements here were made in the context of a press conference and in a related 

press release by the Oakland Police Department addressing a recent spike in crime and asking for 

the assistance of the community. This is clearly a matter of public concern and Plaintiff has 

pointed to no authority that supports a contrary conclusion. Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory 

statement in his brief that the statements are not a matter of public concern because they were “not 

for public debate” see Opposition at 23, misses the mark because that is not the test. 

 The only remaining question is whether Plaintiff has pointed to sufficient evidence to 

create a fact question as to whether the statements at issue were false. In Masson v. New Yorker 

Magazine, Inc., the Supreme Court set forth the following standard for proving falsity: 

The common law of libel takes but one approach to the question of 

falsity, regardless of the form of the communication. See 

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563, Comment c (1977); W. 

Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on 

Law of Torts 776 (5th ed. 1984). It overlooks minor inaccuracies 

and concentrates upon substantial truth. As in other jurisdictions, 

California law permits the defense of substantial truth and would 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 31 of 34
32 

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 

absolve a defendant even if she cannot “justify every word of the 

alleged defamatory matter; it is sufficient if the substance of the 

charge be proved true, irrespective of slight inaccuracy in the 

details.” 5 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law § 495 (9th ed. 

1988) (citing cases). 

501 U.S. 496, 516-517 (1991). The Court continued, “[p]ut another way, the statement is not 

considered false unless it ‘would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which 

the pleaded truth would have produced.’” Id. (quoting R. Sack, Libel, Slander, and Related 

Problems 138 (1980)). “Whether a statement contains provably false factual assertions is a 

question of law for the trial court to decide.” Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc., 74 Cal. 

App. 4th 1359, 1382 (1999). 

 The statements here can be broken into two components: 1) whether Van was, in fact, one 

of Oakland’s “Most Wanted”; and 2) whether he was “Wanted for Shooting,” as stated in the press 

release. As to the first component, Plaintiff has offered no evidence from which a jury could 

reasonably conclude Plaintiff Chau Van was not one of Oakland’s “Most Wanted.” In fact, as 

Plaintiff concedes in his request to conduct further discovery, he has uncovered no evidence 

whatsoever as to how or why Plaintiff was listed as one of Oakland’s “Most Wanted.” The 

statement that Van was wanted for a “shooting” presents a closer call. Defendants concede that 

the statement that Van was wanted for a shooting was incorrect. See Motion at 15 (conceding that 

“the press communications incorrectly stated Plaintiff was wanted for a shooting instead of for 

assault with a deadly weapon” but that this error, “while unfortunate, is irrelevant”). Nonetheless, 

the undisputed evidence – namely, the warrant obtained by Officer Jimenez for Van’s arrest – does

establish that Van was being sought for assault with a deadly weapon. Under the standard set 

forth above, the Court concludes that this evidence supports the conclusion that the statement was 

“substantially true.”15

 Therefore, the Court holds that Plaintiff’s tort claims based on the communications that he 

 

15 The Court notes that it does not reach the question of whether there was probable cause to 

believe Plaintiff assaulted Quyen Nguyen with a deadly weapon of any kind, whether a baseball 

bat, a pipe or a gun. It simply relies on the fact that Officer Jimenez had obtained a search warrant 

for such an assault, indicating that Plaintiff was wanted for assault with a deadly weapon by the 

Police Department of the City of Oakland. 

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 32 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

wa

one

jud

cou

inv

LL

ess

“Th

the

328

a “

reje

to t

sum

sta

ins

em

ins

to t

4th

jud

tow

app

as Oakland’s

2.

Section

e made . . . B

dicial, (B) leg

urse thereof 

vestigation fa

C, 173 Cal.A

sentially the 

he privilege 

e statements 

8, 351) (200

public offici

ects Plaintiff

the First Am

mmary judgm

tements are 

3.

Cal. Go

stituting or p

mployment, e

stitution and 

the act of fil

h 218, 229 (2

dicial procee

ward the inst

plies even if

 Althou

 “Most Wan

. Cal. Civ. 

n 47(d)(1) pr

By a fair and

gislative, or 

. . . .” Calif

all under this

App. 4th 132

same standa

applies if th

made in the 

5)). Plaintif

ial proceedin

ff’s position f

mendment de

ment on the 

privileged u

. Cal. Gov’

ov’t Code pr

rosecuting a

even if he act

prosecution 

ing a crimin

2009). Thus

ding are also

titution of fo

f the authorit

ugh Plaintiff 

nted” and tha

Code sectio

ovides, in re

d true report 

(C) other pu

fornia courts 

s privilege if

25, 1337 (20

ard as the on

he substance 

official proc

ff does not d

ng.” Rather,

for the same

efense asserte

Fifth and Si

under Cal. Ci

’t Code sect

ovides that “

any judicial o

ts maliciousl

of judicial p

nal complaint

, “[a]cts take

o protected b

ormal procee

ies later dec

makes the c

33

at he was wa

on 47(d)(1)

elevant part, 

in, or a com

ublic official

have held th

f they are “fa

009). The “fa

e discussed 

of the publi

ceedings.” Id

dispute that th

, he argues th

e reasons it fo

ed by Defen

xth Causes o

iv. Code sec

tion 821.6 

“[a] public e

or administra

ly and witho

proceeding i

t.” County of

en during an

by section 82

dings.” Id. (

ide not to fil

conclusory a

3

anted for a sh

that “[a] pri

mmunication 

l proceeding

hat statemen

fair and true.”

fair and true”

above for fa

ication or bro

d. (citing Ca

he communi

hat they are 

found that Pl

ndants. Ther

of Action on

ction 47(d)(1

employee is n

ative procee

out probable 

in Governme

of Los Angele

n investigatio

21.6 because

(citations om

le charges.”

ssertion that

hooting fail 

ivileged pub

to, a public j

g, or (D) of a

nts made in t

” Balzaga v

” requiremen

alsity under t

oadcast capt

arver v. Bond

ications wer

not “fair and

laintiff failed

refore, Defen

n the addition

1). 

not liable fo

eding within 

cause.” “C

ent Code sec

es v. Superio

on prior to th

e investigatio

mitted). Furt

Id. (citatio

t the commu

on summary

lication or b

journal, of (

anything said

the course of

v. Fox News

nt is governe

the First Am

tures the gist

ds, 135 Cal.

re made in th

d true.” The

d to meet his

ndants are en

nal ground th

r injury caus

the scope of

ourts have h

ction 821.6 i

or Court, 18

he institution

ons are an es

ther, “the im

ns omitted).

unications at 

y judgment.

broadcast is 

(A) a 

d in the 

f a police 

s Network, 

ed by 

mendment: 

t or sting of 

App. 4th 

he course of 

e Court 

s burden as 

ntitled to 

hat the 

sed by his 

f his 

held that the 

s not limited

1 Cal. App. 

n of a 

ssential step

mmunity 

issue were 

d

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 33 of 34
United States District Court 

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 

not

rea

Ma

res

mo

dis

De

V.

Pla

De

are

and

Da

t part of an i

ached a contr

arino, 147 C

sponsible for

olestation we

stress claims 

efendants Wa

CONC

For the 

aintiff’s Thir

efendants’ M

e dismissed, 

d close the fi

IT IS S

ated: March 

nvestigation

rary conclus

al.App.4th 1

r issuing pres

ere immune 

under sectio

atson and Pe

LUSION 

reasons stat

rd Cause of A

Motion for Su

in their entir

ile. 

SO ORDER

3, 2015 

n before the i

ion under sim

1033, 1050 (

ss release sta

from liabilit

on 821.6). T

erkins are en

ted above, Pl

Action is DI

ummary Judg

rety. The Cl

RED. 

34

institution of

milar circum

(2007) (holdi

ating that pla

y on defama

The Court the

ntitled to imm

laintiff’s Mo

SMISSED w

gment is GR

lerk is instru

___

JO

Un

4

f a judicial p

mstances. Se

ing that poli

aintiff was b

ation and int

erefore finds

munity under

otion for Lea

with prejudic

RANTED. A

ucted to enter

__________

OSEPH C. SP

nited States M

proceeding, C

ee, e.g., Gilla

ice departme

being investi

tentional infl

s, based on t

r Cal. Gov’t

ave to Amen

ce for failure

Accordingly,

r judgment i

___________

PERO 

Magistrate Ju

California co

an v. City of

ent employee

igated for sex

liction of em

the undisput

t Code sectio

nd is DENIE

e to state a c

 all of Plaint

in favor of D

__________

udge 

ourts have 

f San 

es 

xual 

motional 

ed facts, tha

on 821.6. 

ED. 

laim. 

tiff’s claims 

Defendants 

________ 

t

Case 3:13-cv-00992-JCS Document 66 Filed 03/04/15 Page 34 of 34